3.  The cause of the rupture was the allegation that I wrote to Apollinarius and was in communion with the presbyter Diodorus.  I never regarded Apollinarius as an enemy, and for some reasons I even respect him.  But I never so far united myself to him as to take upon me the charges against him; indeed I have myself some accusations to bring against him after reading some of his books.  I do not know that I ever asked him for a book on the Holy Spirit, or received it on his sending:  I am told that he has become a most copious writer, but I have read very few of his works. Fragments of Apollinarius are extant in the works of Theodoret and Gregory of Nyssa, and in Mai’s Script. Vet. Nov. col. vii., and Spicil. Rom.x. 2.  cf. Thomasius, Christ. Dogm. 451.  cf. Ep. cclxiii. p. 302.  I have not even time to investigate such matters.  Indeed I shrink from admitting any of the more recent works, for my health does not even allow of my reading the inspired Scriptures with diligence and as I ought.  What, then, is it to me, if some one has written something displeasing to somebody else?  Yet if one man is to render an account on behalf of another, let him who accuses me for Apollinarius’ sake defend himself to me for the sake of Arius his own master and of Aetius his own disciple.  I never learnt anything from, nor taught anything to this man whose guilt is laid at my door.  Diodorus, as a nursling of the blessed Silvanus, I did receive from the beginning:  I love him now and respect him on account of his grace of speech, whereby many who meet him are made the better men. Diodorus now presbyter of Antioch, did not become bishop of Tarsus till about the time of Basil’s death.  On his services to the Church at Antioch, cf. Theod., H.E. ii. 19. and Soc., H.E.vi. 8.  The controversy as to his alleged Nestorianism belongs to a later date.  On the relations between Diodorus and Apollinarius, cf. Dorner, Christ. i. pp. 976 and 1022.