Question: Did bribery work in convincing Liberius to believe the Arians?

Answer: were refused

Constantius, ordered Liberius into exile in 356 giving him, then, three days to comply. He was ordered into banishment to Beroea, in Thrace; Beroea (Thrace). <hl> He sent expensive presents, too, if he were to accept the Arian position but were refused . <hl> He sent him, indeed, five hundred pieces of gold "to bear his charges" but Liberius refused them, saying, he might bestow them on his flatters; as he did also a like present from the empress, bidding the messenger learn to believe in Christ, and not to persecute the Church of God. Attempts were made to leave the presents in The Church, but Liberius threw them out. Constantius hereupon sent for him under a strict guard to Milan, where, in a conference recorded by Theodoret, he boldly told Constantius that Athanasius had been acquitted at Sardica, and his enemies proved calumniators (see: "calumny") and impostors, and that it was unjust to condemn a person who could not be legally convicted of any crime. The emperor was reduced to silence on every article, but being the more out of patience, ordered him into banishment. Liberius went into exile. Constantius, after two years went to Rome to celebrate the twentieth year of his reign. The ladies joined in a petition to him that he would restore Liberius. He assented, upon condition that he should comply with the bishops, then, at court. He subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius, and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium. And he no sooner had recovered his see that he declared himself for the Creed of Niceae, as Theodoret testifies. (Theodoret, Hist. lib. ii. c. 17.). The Emperor knew what he wanted people to believe. So did the bishops at his court. Athanasius stuck by the orthodox creed. Constantius was an avowed Arian, became sole ruler in 350, at the death of his brother, Constans.

Constantius, ordered Liberius into exile in 356 giving him, then, three days to comply. He was ordered into banishment to Beroea, in Thrace; Beroea (Thrace). He sent expensive presents, too, if he were to accept the Arian position but <hl> were refused <hl>. He sent him, indeed, five hundred pieces of gold "to bear his charges" but Liberius refused them, saying, he might bestow them on his flatters; as he did also a like present from the empress, bidding the messenger learn to believe in Christ, and not to persecute the Church of God. Attempts were made to leave the presents in The Church, but Liberius threw them out. Constantius hereupon sent for him under a strict guard to Milan, where, in a conference recorded by Theodoret, he boldly told Constantius that Athanasius had been acquitted at Sardica, and his enemies proved calumniators (see: "calumny") and impostors, and that it was unjust to condemn a person who could not be legally convicted of any crime. The emperor was reduced to silence on every article, but being the more out of patience, ordered him into banishment. Liberius went into exile. Constantius, after two years went to Rome to celebrate the twentieth year of his reign. The ladies joined in a petition to him that he would restore Liberius. He assented, upon condition that he should comply with the bishops, then, at court. He subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius, and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium. And he no sooner had recovered his see that he declared himself for the Creed of Niceae, as Theodoret testifies. (Theodoret, Hist. lib. ii. c. 17.). The Emperor knew what he wanted people to believe. So did the bishops at his court. Athanasius stuck by the orthodox creed. Constantius was an avowed Arian, became sole ruler in 350, at the death of his brother, Constans.

He sent expensive presents, too, if he were to accept the Arian position but <hl> were refused <hl> .

question: Did bribery work in convincing Liberius to believe the Arians?, context: Constantius, ordered Liberius into exile in 356 giving him, then, three days to comply. He was ordered into banishment to Beroea, in Thrace; Beroea (Thrace). He sent expensive presents, too, if he were to accept the Arian position but were refused. He sent him, indeed, five hundred pieces of gold "to bear his charges" but Liberius refused them, saying, he might bestow them on his flatters; as he did also a like present from the empress, bidding the messenger learn to believe in Christ, and not to persecute the Church of God. Attempts were made to leave the presents in The Church, but Liberius threw them out. Constantius hereupon sent for him under a strict guard to Milan, where, in a conference recorded by Theodoret, he boldly told Constantius that Athanasius had been acquitted at Sardica, and his enemies proved calumniators (see: "calumny") and impostors, and that it was unjust to condemn a person who could not be legally convicted of any crime. The emperor was reduced to silence on every article, but being the more out of patience, ordered him into banishment. Liberius went into exile. Constantius, after two years went to Rome to celebrate the twentieth year of his reign. The ladies joined in a petition to him that he would restore Liberius. He assented, upon condition that he should comply with the bishops, then, at court. He subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius, and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium. And he no sooner had recovered his see that he declared himself for the Creed of Niceae, as Theodoret testifies. (Theodoret, Hist. lib. ii. c. 17.). The Emperor knew what he wanted people to believe. So did the bishops at his court. Athanasius stuck by the orthodox creed. Constantius was an avowed Arian, became sole ruler in 350, at the death of his brother, Constans.


Question: What did Liberius have to promise to do in order to return?

Answer: comply with the bishops

Constantius, ordered Liberius into exile in 356 giving him, then, three days to comply. He was ordered into banishment to Beroea, in Thrace; Beroea (Thrace). He sent expensive presents, too, if he were to accept the Arian position but were refused. He sent him, indeed, five hundred pieces of gold "to bear his charges" but Liberius refused them, saying, he might bestow them on his flatters; as he did also a like present from the empress, bidding the messenger learn to believe in Christ, and not to persecute the Church of God. Attempts were made to leave the presents in The Church, but Liberius threw them out. Constantius hereupon sent for him under a strict guard to Milan, where, in a conference recorded by Theodoret, he boldly told Constantius that Athanasius had been acquitted at Sardica, and his enemies proved calumniators (see: "calumny") and impostors, and that it was unjust to condemn a person who could not be legally convicted of any crime. The emperor was reduced to silence on every article, but being the more out of patience, ordered him into banishment. Liberius went into exile. Constantius, after two years went to Rome to celebrate the twentieth year of his reign. The ladies joined in a petition to him that he would restore Liberius. <hl> He assented, upon condition that he should comply with the bishops , then, at court. <hl> He subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius, and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium. And he no sooner had recovered his see that he declared himself for the Creed of Niceae, as Theodoret testifies. (Theodoret, Hist. lib. ii. c. 17.). The Emperor knew what he wanted people to believe. So did the bishops at his court. Athanasius stuck by the orthodox creed. Constantius was an avowed Arian, became sole ruler in 350, at the death of his brother, Constans.

Constantius, ordered Liberius into exile in 356 giving him, then, three days to comply. He was ordered into banishment to Beroea, in Thrace; Beroea (Thrace). He sent expensive presents, too, if he were to accept the Arian position but were refused. He sent him, indeed, five hundred pieces of gold "to bear his charges" but Liberius refused them, saying, he might bestow them on his flatters; as he did also a like present from the empress, bidding the messenger learn to believe in Christ, and not to persecute the Church of God. Attempts were made to leave the presents in The Church, but Liberius threw them out. Constantius hereupon sent for him under a strict guard to Milan, where, in a conference recorded by Theodoret, he boldly told Constantius that Athanasius had been acquitted at Sardica, and his enemies proved calumniators (see: "calumny") and impostors, and that it was unjust to condemn a person who could not be legally convicted of any crime. The emperor was reduced to silence on every article, but being the more out of patience, ordered him into banishment. Liberius went into exile. Constantius, after two years went to Rome to celebrate the twentieth year of his reign. The ladies joined in a petition to him that he would restore Liberius. He assented, upon condition that he should <hl> comply with the bishops <hl>, then, at court. He subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius, and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium. And he no sooner had recovered his see that he declared himself for the Creed of Niceae, as Theodoret testifies. (Theodoret, Hist. lib. ii. c. 17.). The Emperor knew what he wanted people to believe. So did the bishops at his court. Athanasius stuck by the orthodox creed. Constantius was an avowed Arian, became sole ruler in 350, at the death of his brother, Constans.

He assented, upon condition that he should <hl> comply with the bishops <hl> , then, at court.

question: What did Liberius have to promise to do in order to return?, context: Constantius, ordered Liberius into exile in 356 giving him, then, three days to comply. He was ordered into banishment to Beroea, in Thrace; Beroea (Thrace). He sent expensive presents, too, if he were to accept the Arian position but were refused. He sent him, indeed, five hundred pieces of gold "to bear his charges" but Liberius refused them, saying, he might bestow them on his flatters; as he did also a like present from the empress, bidding the messenger learn to believe in Christ, and not to persecute the Church of God. Attempts were made to leave the presents in The Church, but Liberius threw them out. Constantius hereupon sent for him under a strict guard to Milan, where, in a conference recorded by Theodoret, he boldly told Constantius that Athanasius had been acquitted at Sardica, and his enemies proved calumniators (see: "calumny") and impostors, and that it was unjust to condemn a person who could not be legally convicted of any crime. The emperor was reduced to silence on every article, but being the more out of patience, ordered him into banishment. Liberius went into exile. Constantius, after two years went to Rome to celebrate the twentieth year of his reign. The ladies joined in a petition to him that he would restore Liberius. He assented, upon condition that he should comply with the bishops, then, at court. He subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius, and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium. And he no sooner had recovered his see that he declared himself for the Creed of Niceae, as Theodoret testifies. (Theodoret, Hist. lib. ii. c. 17.). The Emperor knew what he wanted people to believe. So did the bishops at his court. Athanasius stuck by the orthodox creed. Constantius was an avowed Arian, became sole ruler in 350, at the death of his brother, Constans.


Question: At what point could Athanasius return to Alexandria?

Answer: When Emperor Constantine I died

<hl> When Emperor Constantine I died , Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. <hl> Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

<hl> When Emperor Constantine I died <hl>, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

<hl> When Emperor Constantine I died <hl> , Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria.

question: At what point could Athanasius return to Alexandria?, context: When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.


Question: Who provided for his protection while he was in Rome?

Answer: Constans

When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. <hl> Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans , the Emperor of the West. <hl> During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of <hl> Constans <hl>, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of <hl> Constans <hl> , the Emperor of the West.

question: Who provided for his protection while he was in Rome?, context: When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.


Question: Who became Patriarch in Alexandria while Athanasius was away?

Answer: Gregory of Cappadocia

When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. <hl> During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. <hl> Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, <hl> Gregory of Cappadocia <hl> was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

question: Who became Patriarch in Alexandria while Athanasius was away?, context: When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.


Question: How did the people of Alexandria know when to celebrate Easter?

Answer: Festal Letters

When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. <hl> Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters , in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year. <hl>

When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual <hl> Festal Letters <hl>, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual <hl> Festal Letters <hl> , in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

question: How did the people of Alexandria know when to celebrate Easter?, context: When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.


Question: Who declared Athanasius to be exiled again?

Answer: Constantius II

When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. <hl> Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II , renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. <hl> Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor <hl> Constantius II <hl>, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.

Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor <hl> Constantius II <hl> , renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338.

question: Who declared Athanasius to be exiled again?, context: When Emperor Constantine I died, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did, however, remain in contact with his people through his annual Festal Letters, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.


Question: Why did the Bishops condemn Athanasius?

Answer: threats of the Emperor

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. <hl> The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor , an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. <hl> The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the <hl> threats of the Emperor <hl>, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

The fathers terrified of the <hl> threats of the Emperor <hl> , an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius.

question: Why did the Bishops condemn Athanasius?, context: T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.


Question: What happened to the Bishops who did not take the oath?

Answer: sent into exile

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. <hl> Those who refused were sent into exile . <hl> The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were <hl> sent into exile <hl>. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

Those who refused were <hl> sent into exile <hl> .

question: What happened to the Bishops who did not take the oath?, context: T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.


Question: Did the Pope agree with this order?

Answer: Pope refused to accept

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. <hl> The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. <hl> To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The <hl> Pope refused to accept <hl> their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

question: Did the Pope agree with this order?, context: T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.


Question: Did the Emperor agree to a new trial for Athanasius?

Answer: Constantius consented

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. <hl> To this Constantius consented , for he felt able to control it, at Milan. <hl> Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this <hl> Constantius consented <hl>, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

To this <hl> Constantius consented <hl> , for he felt able to control it, at Milan.

question: Did the Emperor agree to a new trial for Athanasius?, context: T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.


Question: What oath did the Bishops have to take at the trial?

Answer: Arian formula of faith

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. <hl> He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. <hl> He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an <hl> Arian formula of faith <hl> for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.

question: What oath did the Bishops have to take at the trial?, context: T. Gilmartin, (Professor of History, Maynooth, 1890), writes in Church History, Vol. 1, Ch XVII: By Constantius's order, the sole ruler of The Roman Empire at the death of his brother Constans, the Council of Arles in 353, was held, which was presided over by Vincent, Bishop of Capua, in the name of Pope Liberius. The fathers terrified of the threats of the Emperor, an avowed Arian, they consented to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope refused to accept their decision, and requested the Emperor to hold another Council, in which the charges against Athanasius could be freely investigated. To this Constantius consented, for he felt able to control it, at Milan. Milan was named as the place, here three hundred bishops assembled, most from the West, only a few from the East, in 355. They met in the Church of Milan. Shortly, the Emperor ordered them to a hall in the Imperial Palace, thus ending any free debate. He presented an Arian formula of faith for their acceptance. He threatened any who refused with exile and death. All, with the exception of Dionysius (bishop of Milan), and the two Papal Legates, viz., Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, consented to the Arian Creed and the condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were sent into exile. The decrees were forwarded to the Pope for approval, but were rejected, because of the violence to which the bishops were subjected.


Question: What happened to Bishop George?

Answer: murder

<hl> In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George <hl> , Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.

In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the <hl> murder <hl> of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.

question: What happened to Bishop George?, context: In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.


Question: What happened to Bishop leaders who did not agree with the doctrine?

Answer: severe penance

In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. <hl> Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies. <hl>

In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but <hl> severe penance <hl> was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.

question: What happened to Bishop leaders who did not agree with the doctrine?, context: In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.


Question: When did Athanasius return to his position as Patriarch?

Answer: after the death of Emperor Constantius

<hl> In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius , shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. <hl> The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.

In 361, <hl> after the death of Emperor Constantius <hl>, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.

In 361, <hl> after the death of Emperor Constantius <hl> , shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate.

question: When did Athanasius return to his position as Patriarch?, context: In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.


Question: Who joined him when he formed a council to encourage unity among Christians?

Answer: Eusebius of Vercelli

In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. <hl> The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli . <hl> Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.

In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with <hl> Eusebius of Vercelli <hl>. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.

The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with <hl> Eusebius of Vercelli <hl> .

question: Who joined him when he formed a council to encourage unity among Christians?, context: In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, Athanasius returned to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria, and presided over it with Eusebius of Vercelli. Athanasius appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for his definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, the council also was directed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the human soul of Christ, and Christ's divinity. Mild measures were agreed on for those heretic bishops who repented, but severe penance was decreed for the chief leaders of the major heresies.


Question: What Christian beliefs did Emperor Valens adhere to?

Answer: Arian

<hl> Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. <hl> This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl. ", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl. ", IV, xii).

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the <hl> Arian <hl> position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).

question: What Christian beliefs did Emperor Valens adhere to?, context: Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).


Question: Where did Athanasius during his latest exile?

Answer: outskirts of Alexandria

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. <hl> This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria , where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. <hl> Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl. ", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl. ", IV, xii).

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the <hl> outskirts of Alexandria <hl>, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).

This time however, Athanasius simply left for the <hl> outskirts of Alexandria <hl> , where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile.

question: Where did Athanasius during his latest exile?, context: Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).


Question: For how long was he exiled this time?

Answer: few months

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. <hl> This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. <hl> Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl. ", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl. ", IV, xii).

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a <hl> few months <hl> before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).

question: For how long was he exiled this time?, context: Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).


Question: Where did he hide during this time?

Answer: his father's tomb

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. <hl> It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb . <hl> (Soz., "Hist. Eccl. ", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl. ", IV, xii).

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in <hl> his father's tomb <hl>. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).

It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in <hl> his father's tomb <hl> .

question: Where did he hide during this time?, context: Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).


Question: Who convinced Valens to let him return to Alexandria?

Answer: local authorities

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. <hl> This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. <hl> Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl. ", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl. ", IV, xii).

Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the <hl> local authorities <hl> convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).

question: Who convinced Valens to let him return to Alexandria?, context: Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile. Some early reports state that Athanasius spent this period of exile at his family's ancestral tomb in a Christian cemetery. It was during this period, the final exile, that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb. (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii).


Question: Who standardized the books of the New Testament?

Answer: Athanasius

<hl> Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. <hl> Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

<hl> Athanasius <hl> is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

question: Who standardized the books of the New Testament?, context: Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.


Question: What books were used before his decision to standardize?

Answer: various

Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. <hl> Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. <hl> Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, <hl> various <hl> similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

question: What books were used before his decision to standardize?, context: Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.


Question: How many books are listed that should be included but were not?

Answer: 7 books

<hl> Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 2 7 books of the New Testament that are in use today. <hl> Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 2<hl> 7 books <hl> of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 2 <hl> 7 books <hl> of the New Testament that are in use today.

question: How many books are listed that should be included but were not?, context: Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.


Question: How many books are in the New Testament?

Answer: 27 books

<hl> Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. <hl> Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Athanasius is the first person to identify the same <hl> 27 books <hl> of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

question: How many books are in the New Testament?, context: Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.


Question: Have those books changed over time?

Answer: in use today

<hl> Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today . <hl> Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are <hl> in use today <hl>. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are <hl> in use today <hl> .

question: Have those books changed over time?, context: Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and places the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.


Question: Did Athanasius feel that it was important to believe that Jesus was the Son of God?

Answer: not optional but necessary

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. <hl> This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary ; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. <hl> For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is <hl> not optional but necessary <hl>; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is <hl> not optional but necessary <hl> ; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places.

question: Did Athanasius feel that it was important to believe that Jesus was the Son of God?, context: Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?


Question: Did his place more value on his Faith or where he was living?

Answer: the true Faith

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. <hl> They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith ; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. <hl> Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of <hl> the true Faith <hl>; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of <hl> the true Faith <hl> ; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you.

question: Did his place more value on his Faith or where he was living?, context: Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?


Question: Did he think that the people that had exiled him were true believers?

Answer: outside of the true Faith

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. <hl> They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith ; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. <hl> Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but <hl> outside of the true Faith <hl>; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

They are, it is true, in the places, but <hl> outside of the true Faith <hl> ; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you.

question: Did he think that the people that had exiled him were true believers?, context: Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?


Question: Where did Athanasius think Faith resides?

Answer: within you

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. <hl> They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you . <hl> Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, <hl> within you <hl>. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, <hl> within you <hl> .

question: Where did Athanasius think Faith resides?, context: Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?


Question: Who was the Festal Letter written for?

Answer: his Church in Alexandria

<hl> Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. <hl> This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to <hl> his Church in Alexandria <hl> when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

question: Who was the Festal Letter written for?, context: Perhaps, his most notable letter was his Festal Letter, written to his Church in Alexandria when he was in exile, as he could not be in their presence. This letter shows clearly his stand that accepting Jesus is the Divine Son of God is not optional but necessary; "I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?


Question: How did the people know that Alexander had chosen Athanasius as his successor?

Answer: thrice repeating his name

<hl> Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name . <hl> In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, <hl> thrice repeating his name <hl>. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, <hl> thrice repeating his name <hl> .

question: How did the people know that Alexander had chosen Athanasius as his successor?, context: Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "


Question: How old was Athanasius when he was chosen as Patriarch?

Answer: thirty years

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. <hl> He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. <hl> "

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about <hl> thirty years <hl> of age. "

question: How old was Athanasius when he was chosen as Patriarch?, context: Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "


Question: Who came to Alexandria to confirm the choice?

Answer: bishops of all Egypt

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. <hl> In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. <hl> He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the <hl> bishops of all Egypt <hl> assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "

question: Who came to Alexandria to confirm the choice?, context: Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "


Question: Did all the people want him as Patriarch?

Answer: unanimous in their choice

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. <hl> In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch <hl> , they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy <hl> unanimous in their choice <hl> of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "

question: Did all the people want him as Patriarch?, context: Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "


Question: How long after the Council of Nicae did Alexander die?

Answer: Five months

<hl> Alban Butler, writes on the subject: " Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. <hl> In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "<hl> Five months <hl> after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "

Alban Butler, writes on the subject: " <hl> Five months <hl> after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name.

question: How long after the Council of Nicae did Alexander die?, context: Alban Butler, writes on the subject: "Five months after this great Council, Nicae, St Alexander lying on his death-bed, recommended to his clergy and people the choice of Athanasius for his successor, thrice repeating his name. In consequence of his recommendation, the bishops of all Egypt assembled at Alexandria, and finding the people and clergy unanimous in their choice of Athanasius for patriarch, they confirmed the election about the middle of year 326. He seems, then, to have been about thirty years of age. "