a scandal of the age), and never lifts his eyes to the wild scene of theological confusion round him but in fear and dread that Antichrist is near.  ’I fear the wars of the nations; I fear the divisions of the churches; I fear the mutual hatred of the brethren.  Enough concerning this.  God forbid it come to pass in our days; yet let us be on our guard.  Enough concerning Antichrist.’  Jews, Samaritans, and Manichees are his chief opponents; yet he does not forget to warn his hearers against the teaching of Sabellius and Marcellus, ’the dragon’s head of late arisen in Galatia.’  Arius he sometimes contradicts in set terms, though without naming him.  Of the Nicenes too, we hear nothing directly, but they seem glanced at in the complaint that whereas in former times heresy was open, the church is now full of secret heretics.  The Nicene creed again he never mentions, but we cannot mistake the allusion when he tells his hearers that their own Jerusalem creed was not put together by the will of men, and impresses on them that every word of it can be proved by Scripture.  But the most significant feature of his language is its close relation to that of the dated creed of Sirmium in 359.  Nearly every point where the latter differs from the Lucianic is one specially emphasized by Cyril.  If then the Lucianic creed represents the earlier conservatism, it follows that Cyril expresses the later views which had to be conciliated in 359.

[Sidenote:  (2.) Antioch.]

The condition of Antioch under Leontius (344-357) is equally significant.  The Nicene was quite as strong in the city as Arianism had ever been at Alexandria.  The Eustathians formed a separate and strongly Nicene congregation under the presbyter Paulinus, and held their meetings outside the walls.  Athanasius communicated with them on his return from exile, and agreed to give the Arians a church in Alexandria, as Constantius desired, if only the Eustathians were allowed one inside the walls of Antioch.  His terms were prudently declined, for the Arians were a minority even in the congregation of Leontius.  The old Arian needed all his caution to avoid offence.  ‘When this snow melts,’ touching his white head, ‘there will be much mud.’  Nicenes and Arians made a slight difference in the doxology; and Leontius always dropped his voice at the critical point, so that nobody knew what he said.  This policy was successful in keeping out of the Eustathian communion not only the indifferent multitude, but also many whose sympathies were clearly Nicene, like the future bishops Meletius and Flavian.  But they always considered him an enemy, and the more dangerous for the contrast of his moderation with the reckless violence of Macedonius at Constantinople.  His appointments were Arianizing, and he gave deep offence by the ordination of his old disciple, the detested Aetius.  So great was the outcry that Leontius was forced to suspend him.  The opposition was led by two ascetic laymen, Flavian and Diodorus, who both became distinguished bishops in later time.  Orthodox feeling was nourished by a vigorous use of hymns and by all-night services at the tombs of the martyrs.  As such practices often led to great abuses, Leontius may have had nothing more in view than good order when he directed the services to be transferred to the church.