The copyright and rights in the nature of copyright worldwide for the images of this manuscript are reserved to King's College, Cambridge. These images may be viewed without payment on the understanding that they have been made available by the copyright holder for private study, educational or research purposes only. Please contact the Archivist at <archivist@kings.cam.ac.uk> for permission to use this material in print or any other medium. Please click OK to agree to these terms.
This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
For dating, see Shapiro, 'Dating Game', 196-7. ff. 1-26 contain watermark fleur de lys/CSH and ff. 27-32 contain fleur de lys/HD. The latter also appears on papers dated between June 1691 and July 1695, while watermarks of the earlier clusters are identical to those occuring on a letter to Locke of 3 May 1692, and also on some revisions to the Principia of the early 1690s and drafts of 'De quadratura curvarum' dating from autumn-winter 1691-2.
Later draft of Clark Library Ms. **N563M3 P222. Questions printed from this manuscript, with summaries of the answers, in Brewster (1855), 2: 342-6. Full text printed in McLachlan, Theological Manuscripts, 60-118.
Each question is followed by an answer discrediting the Athanasians.
f. 1r 'Quest. 1. Whether the ignominious death of Arius in a bog-house was not a feigned
f. 5r 'Quest. 2. Whether the Meletians deserved that ill character wch Athanasius gave them.'
f. 5v 'Quest. III. Whether the Council of Tyre & Ierusalem was not an orthodox authentick Council bigger then that of Nice.'
f. 9r 'Quest IV. Whether it was a dead man's hand in a bag or the dead body of Arsenius wch was laid before ye Council of Tyre to prove that Arsenius was dead.'
'Quest V Whether it was Arsenius alive or only his letter wch Athanasius produced in ye Council of Tyre to prove that he was
'Quest. VI Whether the story of e Council of Tyre
f. 12r 'Quest. VII. Whether the Letter of Pinnes for proving Arsenius to be alive was not feigned by Athanasius at the same time wth the story of the dead man's hand.'
f. 13r 'Quest. VIII. Whether the Letter of Arsenius was not feigned by Athanasius before the convening of the Council of Tyre'
f. 14v 'Quest. IX. Whether the Letter of Ischyras was not feigned by Athanasius.'
f. 16v 'Quest. X. Whether the Recantation of Valens & Vrsatius was not feigned by the friends of Athanasius.'
f. 18r 'Quest. XI. Whether Athanasius was falsly accused or did falsly accuse Eusebius of adultery before the Council of Tyre.'
f. 18v 'Quest. XII. Whether Athanasius did sincerely acquit himself of the crime of breaking the communion cup of Ischyras.'
f. 19v 'Quest. XIII. Whether Athanasius was not made Bishop of Alexandria by sedition & violence against the Canons of that Church.'
f. 20v 'Quest. XIV. Whether Athanasius was not justly deposed by the Council of Tyre.'
f. 24r 'Quest XV [altered from 'XIV']. Whether Athanasius was not seditious.'
f. 28v 'Quest. XVI. Whether Constantius persecuted the Athanasians for religion or only punished them for immorality.'
in English
Bought by Keynes at the Sotheby sale for £34.
How Arius died I reccon a question of no great
moment,
I chuse to begin with it. We are told in history t
he was excommunicated by the council of Nice &
banished by the Emperor &e
time after released out of banishment by the same
Emperor, & t
house miserably day effusion of his bowels e
before he was to have been absolved from excommuni
cation. Now this
abroad till about 24 years after his death, & then it
was first vented by his greatest enemy Athanasius in
a clandestine way. For Athanasius in ee
reign of Constantius being forced to retire from his
bishopric into et
story there by sending about a narrative of it in
a timorous & cautious manner, charging them not
to transcribe it but to return it back to him soo
soon as they had read it. And this appears by a
letter che
those Moncks in ch
condemnation & rejection of e
ye are to beleive that ee
death of Arius is sufficient, ch
learnt from others. For what God has constituted
let no man annull, & whom he has condemned
who shall pronounce just. For who from so great
notwithstanding that it is defended by men. When
therefore you have read it, pray for us & exhort
one another to it & straight way send back those
things to us & publish no copy thereof nor transcribe
any for r
rers the
to read it often. ✝ ffor it is not safe that those our write
ings should come to posterity ch
& unlearned. Thus far Athanasius. In this epistle
he mentions his own flight & the placing of George
in the chair of Alexandria ch
mentions also the subscription of Liberius A.C. 358 &
both the lapse & death of Hosius the first of ch
happened at Sirmium A.C. 357, & the last in or after
the Council of Ariminum as Baronius proves: & there
fore this epistle was written between the Council of
Ariminum & death of Constantius & by consequence
A.C. 359 or soon after: that is 24 years after the
ignominious death of Arius or above. For he died
according to e
cil of Tyre ch355,335e
tion of the ecclesiastical historians soon after: & the
Council of Ariminum sat A.C. 359.
Now at the same time that this libel or narrative
of eAthanasiusArius in the wildere
ness among the Moncks, one Serapion upon a dispute whe
ther Arius died in communion the
Athanasius to know his opinion about it: to whom
Athanasius returned this answer.
letters of your Reverence in chyou I would write to you those things ch
time done against me, & concerning the wicked Heresy
of the Arians by ch
Arius ended his life. Two of these three requests I
have willingly performed & sent to r
have written to e
learn what relates both to r
heresy. But concerning the third head, namely e
death of Arius, I much doubted th
it fearing least in doing it, I should seem to insult
over the death of the man. But yet because a dishistory heresy
ended in this question, Whether Arius died in communion
with the Church: for ending the dispute about his
death I will tell you the truth, accounting it the
same thing to tell this as to end the contention
ffor I perswade my self that e
death being known, it will no longer be doubted
whether the Arian heresy be odious to God or not
Truly I was not at Constantinople when he died
but Macarius the Presbyter was there & I learnt
it by his relation. –– Arius by the endeavour
of the Eusebians being called to the Emperor
Constantine & at his entrance being asked e
the Emperor, if he kept the faith of the Catho
lick Church, affirmed upon oath, that he beleived
aright, suppressing what he had been excom
municated for by Alexander his bishop & colour
ing over his profession th
When therefore he had sworn that he had done
none of those things for chhad was by Alex
ander excommunicated, the Emperor dismist him
with these words. If thy faith be right thou hast
well sworn, but if impious & yet thou hast sworn
God will condemn thee for thy oath. ✝
thus departing from the Emperor, the Eusebians
by their usual force would have introduced into
the Church, but Alexander bishop of Constantino
ple contradicted it, saying that e
heresy ought not to be received into commu
nion. Then e
have procured against your will that he should
be called by the Emperor so to morrow notwith
standing tis against your mind we will bring Arius
into communion with us in this Church. It was
the Sabbath [that is Satturday] when they said this
Which Alexander hearing & being much troubled
he went into the Church, & lifting up his hands
to God lamented & falling upon his face on the th
him & hearing his words. Now he requested one of
these things. If Arius, saith he, must to morrow be
brought into the congregation, let thy servant now
depart & destroy not the righteous the
if thou wilt spare thy Church (for I know thou
wilt spare it) look upon the words of the Eusebians
& give not thy inheritance into destruction & disgrace
& ✝e
Church his heresy may seem also to be received th
Bishop having thus prayed went thence very thought
full & there followed a thing wonderfull & credi incredible. For the Eusebians threatning the
ble
Bishop prayed: but Arius confiding in the Eusebians
& prating much went into a bog-house as if to ease
himself & ✝γραμμένον πρηνὴς γενόμενος, ἐλάκησε μέσος, καὶ πεσὼν ἐυθὺς ἀπέψυχεν.
burst in sunder & died upon the ground being deprived
both of communion & life. Such was the end of
Arius. And the Eusebians being greatly ashamed
buried their fellow conspirator: but the Church
rejoycing Alexander celebrated the communion in
piety & sound faith with all the brethren praying
& greatly glorifying God: not as if he rejoyced at
his death (far be it, for it is appointed all men
once to dy,) but because this thing appeard above
all humane judgment. ffor the Lord himself judg
ing between the thread
prayer of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy,
shewing it unworthy of the communion of the Church
& manifesting to all men that althô it be counte
nanced by the Emperor & by all mortalls yet tis
condemned by the Church. ––– Certainly many
of those who were deceived before were converted,
namely because God himself had condemned the
heresy & shewn it to be incommunicable to the Church.
Wherefore let ewho moved this question let this be read together with what I wrote in briefe to the Moncks concerning this heresy, that they being thence instructed may more & more condemn it. But let no copy of these things be transcribed nor transcribe any for your self. ffor this I have also enjoyned &c. Thus far Athanasius. So
Now the reasons ch
1. Because e
to e
not likely that God would heare a wicked prayer
2. Because the story came to us not from Con
stantinople as it ought to have done, but from Egypt
& was not broached there till 24 years after e
death of Arius or above. Athanasius & the Bish
ops of Egypt when collected in a c
Alexandria five years after the Council of Tyre
knew nothing of it, as you may perceive by the
letter chthat
Athanasius against Arius & the Council of Tyre. Nor
he wrote in defence of Athanasius. Nor did the Coun
cil of Sardica (where Athanasius & his friends were
assembled together out of all the Empire) know any
thing of it as you may perceive by their letters.
Athanasius long after these times told it as a secret
& out of his writings the Ecclesiastical historians
have propagated it to posterity.
3. Because it was broached & spread abroad by
the grand enemy of Arius without any pretence
of proof or other evidence then ee
reporter. ffor detracting stories never look well
when told by profest enemies. Such a person may
be an accuser but not a witness, & accusations th
of justice to be accounted calumnies.
4 Because Athanasius broached it as he con
fesseth, to blast the name & religion of his ene
mies, & that at a point of time when he was
reduced to the greatest despare
5 Because he broacht it in a clandestine way
in the wilderness amongst e
who were ignorant of affairs of e
on his mouth as on an oracle: & also because he
was fearfull least the writings by ch
it should come into other hands ch
not trust, or remain upon record. For, saith he,
tis not safe that they should come to posterity
6 Because e
it spread but slowly, being not generally known
till the ecclesiastical historians about ninety years
after e
histories as ✝Ruffin & Sulpi
cius Severus who wrote theiries above
thirty years after knew nothing of it, & yet
the first of them had travelled through e
It seems to have made little noise in the
world before the Greek Historians met with it
in the writings of Athanasius & put it about.
7. And tho it came originally from Egypt & was not
known originally in the world till about 24 years after
the death of Arius, yet Athanasius to give credit to it amongst
the Egyptian Moncks, told it then & there as if it had
been well known at Constantinople from the beginning
saying that at e
bians were ashamed & many of them were converted
& the Church rejoyced greatly. ffor how it could be
so publickly known there at first, & not spread thence
into Egypt & other regions before Athanasius told it
I understand not.
Lastly the whole
sent that Arius died miserably th
the Church, & yet for that end Athanasius in his letter
to Serapion represents as if he died at Constantinople
immediately after he was recalled thither from ba
nishment before the Eusebians had time enough to
receive him into communion. And in his letter to
the Moncks when he had mentioned the ignomi
nious death of Arius he subjoyns that the Euse
bians not very long after accomplished what they
had been endeavouring at Constantinople, about re
ceiving the Arians into communion (meaning at
Ierusalem) & pretending the Emperors command
& not blushing after the deposition of Athanasius
to write in their letters (that is, in a letter of e
Council of Ierusalem to Alexandria) that envy
was ceased & that they had received the Arians
& boasted e
to add that the faith of e
does Athanasius in these his two letters that he
may make Arius dye out of
place his death at Constantinople before the
Arians were received at Ierusalem. And yet its
certain that Arius went from Constantinople to
Tyre & Ierusalem & Alexandria before he died
& was one of those whome the Council of Ieru
salem received into communion. ffor Constantine t
& after he had allowed their profession of faith, sent them
to e
Council (ch
that of Nice) removing to Ierusalem received them there
& sent them th
dria to be readmitted to their places. This story is told
not only by the Ecclesiastical ✝
the Council it self in that letter & by the Bishops
of that Council met again in the Council of Antioch
where they write that they being judges of the faith
of Arius had received him rather then followed him
Tis acknowledged also by Athanasius himself in his
book de Synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ where he recites
the letter of the Council of Ierusalem & then adds
that that Council ✝
sius wrote in this letter to Alexandria, that they
should receive Arius & those that were with him.
And the memory & tradition of his reception at Tyre
remained in Egypt till Athanasius by a contrary
story extinguished it as is manifest by the opposition
that e
some disputing that he died in communion till Atha
nasius commanded them silence. Historians therefore
finding that Arius was certainly received at Tyre & went
thence to Alexandria have endeavoured to mend the
narrative of Athanasius by placing the death of Arius
not immediately after the
Constantinople as Athanasius doth but after his return
from Alexandria thither. And yet to allow, as they do,
that Arius was received into communion & b at Ie
rusalem & by consequence died within the pale of ee
to tell that e
him at Ierusalem, would have received him at Con
stantinople as if they had not received him before is
contrary not only to e
also to common sense. ffrom one exco
is but one absolution.
These are the reasons chthe suspect the story of e
Seleuciæ long after the death of Macarius &
therein relates the reception of Arius at Ieru
salem: I suspect also that he knew nothing then
of the story of Arius dying in a bog out of com
munion & therefore had it not from Macarius
as he pretends, but invented it himself.
In Dioclesian's persecution there arose a controversy
between Peter the Bishop of Alexandria & Meletius
the first of the Bishops under him; ch
a schism in the churches of Egypt; both parties
notwithstanding keeping communion th
ches abroad. When Athanasius succeeded in the
Bishoprick of Alexandria, he was accused of ty
rannical behaviour towards the Meletians so as in
the time of the sacrament to break the communion
cup of one Ichyras a Meletian Presbyter in Ma
reote & subvert the communion table & cause e
church to be speedily demolished, & some time after
to kill Arsenius a Bishop the successor of
in Hypselita. Whereupon the Meletians accusing
Athanasius of these things, he was tryed & con
demned in the Council of Tyre & banished by e
Emperor Constantine the great. And this caused
great enmity between Athanasius & the Meletians.
Athanasius therefore in his second Apology
charactede
Bishop of Alexandria in a common synod of e
Bishops convicted of many crimes, & particularly
that he had sacrificed to idols & for these things
deposed: & that he thereupon made a schism so that
his followers instead of Meletians Ch ee
much otherwise. ffor he calls Meletius a Confessor, &
Confessors were in prison together there arose a dispute
about the reception of lapsed persons, Peter out of mercy
being for a speedy reception & Meletius & Peleus &
many other martyrs & confessors out of zeal for piety
being for a competent time of penitence before they
were received so that the sincerity of their penitence
might first appear: & thereupon they divided; the
greater part following Meletius. Afterwards Peter
suffered martyrdome, & Meletius for some time was
condemned to the mines. Thus Epiphanius.
Now that ch
of Athanasius is first because the character given
by the greatest enemy is always the most to be
suspected & then because the Council of Nice did
not receive Meletius & his party into communion as
they would have done had they been excommunicate
before, but th
their bishopricks, & only for putting an end to the
schism confined Meletius to his city & deprived him
of the power of ordeining as you may see in the
epistle of this Council to the Churches of Egypt.
ffor if Meletius & his party continued in communi
on without ever being absolved from excommu
nication (as its plain by the epistle of the Council
of Nice that they did) then they were never
excommunicate: & if so, then the Story of Atha
nasius about their being excommunicate for vari
ous crimes is a fiction.
The friends of Athanasius endeavour all they
conventicle of a few Bishops selected by his enemies for
oppressing him. So Socrates tells us it consisted of
but sixty Bishops. And yet by considering earlier
records I suspect it was as big or bigger then e
Council of Nice. For the designe of this Council
being very great it needed great credit & authority
to support it. They were not only to examin e
cause of Athanasius but also to receive into com
munion Arius & Euzoius th
Egypt, as men who had been opprest by a fals
representation of their faith: & it was a
Canon of the Church as well as a necessary one
that no man should be received by a less number
of Bishops then those by ch
And therefore the Emperor sent his letters into all
the Eastern Empire requiring the attendance of e
Bishops that ee
eighty eastern bishops in the letter ch
return from the Council of Sardica they wrote at
Philippopolis, affirm in these words. Concilium ….. post alterum annum in Tyro propter Athanasij facinora necessario iterum celebratur. Advenerunt Episcopi de Macedonia & de Pannonia Bithynia & omnibus partibus Orientis, Imperatoris jussione constricti.
This Council has been reputed Arian & on
that account of no authority, but the accusati
on was never proved & an accusation th
proof is of no credit. The accusation indeed has
gained credit among the followers of Athanasius
for a long time: but this makes it no more
original evidence thô of two thousand years
standing is but popular fame, nor can any man
readily take up with it without making himself
one of the giddy mobile. Such fame indeed when
the original of it is forgotten may make a strong
presumption, but when we know the original & see
that it was spread abroad without evidence can be
of no moment. Wise men must look only to e
evidence. Now all the evidence that this Council
was Arian is only this, that they received Arius
into communion & banished Athanasius. This is all
the ground upon che
was spread abroad by e
party & this is no just ground at all. ffor they
did not receive Arius without his disowning those
things for ch
condemned Athanasius for his owning the Nicene
decrees: & tis not e
men but etheir opi
nions that can make any Council heretical. So
far was this Council from being Arian that the
Bishops thereof in almost all their following
Councils declared against Arianism & anathema
tized the opinions for ch
ned. If you say they dissembled & were Arians
in their heart while they were orthodox in
their language, I must ask you how you or
any man else can know that. For an accusation
without knowledge of the thing is that che
world calls clamour calumny & malice. Had
Athanasius & his Moncks the guift of searching
& knowing men's hearts? & is this a ground for
us to rely upon? We have no other means
of knowing men's faith but by their profession
& outward communion & way of worship, & by
all these characters the fathers of this Council
Arianism & were in communion th
ches of al the world & worshipt as other Chur
ches of that age did. For they were never
reprehended by any their enemies upon any of
these heads. Should any Church of our age
charge heresy upon any body of men of her
own communion, & should the men reply that
they always were of e
& always profest her faith & used her worship
& do
& should e
that notwithstanding their communion profession &
practise they were hereticks in their hearts; &
should the Iudges upon this accusation condemn them
to death: I think such proceedings would by all
sober men be accounted as malicious & barba
rous as any we ever heard of. And yet this
seems to be e
who without any proof are accused of heresy by
those of their own communion contrary to their
constant profession & practise, & their authority
murdered upon the accusation.
If you say that the ffathers of the Council of
Tyre did afterwards in the Councils of Arimi
num & Seleucia declare for Arianism, I answer
that you may better say tht
they declared against Arianism in the Council
of Nice, or if you please that e
was Arian because e
Councils of Nice & Tyre being great & general
Councils of one & the same Greek Church collect
ed within the space of ten years under one &
the same Emperor have a far greater affinity the
Seleucia collected under different Emperors at e
distance of 23 years. If some of e
ffathers were at Seleucia many more of the
so soon after that of Nice consisted partly of e
Nicene ffathers & partly of their immediate dis
ciples & successors: nor had Constantine the great
done any thing to make e
churches alter their opinion between these two
Councils: And therefore to accuse the Tyrian
Council of Arianism is in effect to say that the
generality of the Nicene fathers were Arians in
their hearts & dissembled in their subscriptions. For
they refused to subscribe against Arius till Constan
tine came in person into e
them & then they subscribed th
between the times of the Councils of Tyre & Se
leucia there was time enough for Constantius to
work a change in the bishops & Constantius was
the more likely man to work it: so that if
there was any change wrought in the greek
Bishops between the Councils of Nice & Seleucia
its much more reasonable to beleive that Con
stantius wrought it after e
then Constantine before.
But what if some of e;
what if many of them were Arians? Does
this invalidate the authority of e
Tyre? Surely not. The Athanasians sometimes
complain as if the Eusebians dissembled in the Coun
cil of Nice, but yet would never allow that e
authority of that Council was invalidated thereby.
The authority of a Iudge depends not upon his
religion or sincerity but upon his incorporation
into e
act. And so e
upon the secret religion & sincerity of the men
but upon their being in external communion th
the Church catholick, & having a legal commis
sion to meet & act in Council. For otherwise
we could never be certain that any Council is
authentick. And upon this ground the Council of
or could be since e
communion the
by the letters of Constantine the great.
Now that this was an authentick Council is ma
nifest also by the consent of all parties in that age.
For Athanasius & his party in that age questioned
not e
as if they had abused their authority by corrupt
judgment. They endeavoured by fixing the imputation
of Arian upon them not to invalidate their authori
ty but to bring their sincerity into question. And
therefore Iulius Bishop of Rome cited the eastern
Bishops to appear before him in a Council to justify
not their authority but their integrity. And when they
would not appear the from ex from excommunication,
communication in that Council
& received him into communion, acknowledging thereby
that Athanasius by ee
did really & truly & regularly stand excommunicate
from the western churches as well as from e
ern, & by consequence from e
untill that asbolution. And agreable to this it is t
Athanasius to prove t
the church represents that he died the night before
he was to have been received into communion by
the Eusebians. ffor by this story he acknowledges that
those who were received into communion by e
bians were in communion the
So then by the consent of Athanasius, Pope Iulius
& all their party, the Eusebian Councils before e
rupture between the eastern & western churches
were authentick & their Acts valid & binding.
It remains therefore that we enquire whether
the Council of Tyre dealt sincerely or corruptly
in the cause of Athanasius.
These three questions being of a kind I consider
together as one.
nasius was accused of the death of Arsenius he
represented that Arsenius was alive & thereupon the
Accusers to prove that he was dead produced in the
Council of Tyre a dead man's hand in a bag re
presenting that it was the hand of Arsenius cut off
by Athanasius for magical uses & Athanasius con
futed them by setting the living Arsenius before
the Council & pulling out this
his cloak to let the Council see that neither of his
hands were cut off: at che
sius were ashamed & the Council proceeded no fur
ther. in that accusation there being some among them
who knew Arsenius. And the truth of this story
I question because I find it was unknown in the
times next after the Council till Athanasius pub even to Athanasius himself as well as to
lished it
others till he published it. For Athanasius about four
the year 440, when he was ready to be expelled
his bishoprick the second time called a Council at
Alexandria of 90 Egyptian bishops & in their
name wrote a large elaborate letter to all
the world in his own defense against the accusa
tions & proceedings in the Council of Tyre & seems
to omit nothing that could be thought of in his
behalf & yet says not one word of the dead mans
hand, nor of Arsenius appearing alive at Tyre.
Neither is there any mention of these things in the
letter ch
wrote to e
Rome in behalf of Athanasius who was then
amongst them. Neither are they mentioned in e
two large letters ch
of his party, assembled about five years after
out at in e
dica, wrote to e
Church of Alexandria the other to all the Churches
In all these letters they talk of Arsenius &
say that he was alive but do not say that he
appeared alive at Tyre tho that one thing had
it been true would have been more to the pur
pose then all the rest which they say.
they or any of them had seen him alive, or that
they had any witnesses of his being alive, as they
might & surely would have done had he been
seen alive before all the world at Tyre.
But that ch
the story is that I find it otherwise related
by Athanasius & his friends in these very letters
of e
these Letters, (ch
himself in his second Apology as well as writ
by him & his friends are of unquestionable
authority,) they tell the story as if the accu
sers produced before the Council not a dead
man's hand but a dead body: & Athanasius pro
duced against them not Arsenius alive but his
being ashamed that the Council nothwithstanding
the Letter proceeded to condemn Athanasius for
the murder.
And first that it was a dead body, the Coun
cil of Alexandria Sardica in their letter to
the Church of Alexandria tells them p expresly
in these words. They [that is the Council of
Tyre] said & lamented that Athanasius had committed murder & killed one Arsenius a Meletian Bishop: ,
And on the contrary by the same art the
nius himself. ffor that Athanasius & his friends had
no other evidence of Arsenius's being alive besides
that Letter, he & his Bishops in the Council of
Alexandria have plainly acknowledged in these
words. Athanasius say they was accused of killing
one Arsenius & breaking the communion cup. But
Arsenius is alive & [in his Letter] desires your com
munion, & expects not other testimonies that
he should appear alive, but he himself confesses
that he lives, writing in his own letters to r
Bishop Athanasius whom they assert his murderer.
Nor were the impious ashamed to affirm him the
murderer of one who was in a remote place divided
from us by journeys both by sea & land living in
a region at that time unknown to all men. Yea they
studied to hide him & make him disappear when he
suffered nothing. And as far as they were able they
translated him into another world, being ready to kill
him that either by his real or feigned murder they
might kill Athanasius. But thanks be to the divine
providence who suffers nothing unjust to prosper but
hath before e
living & openly detecting their es
ffor he does not shun us as his murderers nor
hate us as injurious to him (for he suffers no evil
from us:) but desires to communicate with us
& to be of rl
notwithstanding this they proceeded against Athana
sius & banished him as a murderer. ffor it
was not the Emperor Constantine but their ca
lumnies ch
nasius & his Bishops are so far from pretending that
he appeared alive at Tyre that on e
they insist only upon el
& represent that no other evidence was to be ex
pected & by consequence had no other, & magnify
this evidence so much as if God had thereby pro
duced Arsenius alive before the eyes of all men:
& complain that notwithstanding this Letter the Coun
him as a murderer: This they wrote five years
after e
fresh in their memory & contrary stories were
not yet invented.
So then this Letter is the whole ground of
all the confidence wherewith Athanasius & his
friends so constantly reported that Arsenius was
alive. And tho they tell us sometimes that they
knew he was alive, or that he had shewed that
he was not dead, or that God had produced him
living & openly detecting the calumny before
the eyes of all men, yet they mean only
by his Letter. This evidence they magnify
thus extravagantly because they had no other
For had they known where he was or where
any witnesses were ch
would have known of multitudes had he been
seen by all the world at Tyre) they would
have sent for him or the witnesses & had them
in readiness at their Councils to satisfy all their
party, & made a greater noise about such
evidence then about a letter ch
Court of Iudicature would allow for any evi
dence at all. And yet I cannot find that in
all their endeavours to overthrow the Council
of Tyre they ever pretended to have so
much as one living witness who had seen
Arsenius alive. So far are the Egyptian Bish
ops from saying that any of them or any body
else had seen Arsenius at Tyre, that they insist
only on the evidence of his letter & say that he
expects no other testimonies of his being alive,
that is, that he contents himself with having
given them that testimony & therefore they
are not to look for any other. So far are
they from saying that he in person put the
accusers to shame, or stopt e
say that the Council proceeded against Athanasius
notwithstanding the evidence of the letter & banisht
him as a murderer, ch
ted. For in this one pasage you have the concurrent
testimony of both parties against his being seen alive
in the Council: that of Athanasius & his Egyptian
Bishops in objecting nothing more then the letter of
Arsenius against the proceedings of the Council & that
of the eastern Bishops in proceeding on to condemn
Athanasius for the murder. For in doing this they decla adjudged & declared that Arsenius was murdered
& by consequence not seen alive in e
did they only adjudge & declare this in the Council
but afterwards constantly persisted in it, as you
may see in their Letter from e
och to Pope Iulius, & in that ch
from the Council of Sardica they wrote at Philippo
polis to all the world: And for my part I can more
easily beleive what both parties affirmed in that
age before newer stories were invented; then that
the Bishops of all e
sius for murdering a man who appeared alive
before them in the midst of e
himself to be Arsenius & was known by many there;
& be able to satisfy the Emperor Constantine &
the eastern nations of the justness of such a sen
tence. For upon Athanasius's appealing from the
Council the Emperor heard the cause over again
between Athanasius & the Legates of the Council
& he & the East were satisfied in their proceedings.
So then the story of the dead man's hand
& the living Arsenius
in those times & therefore invented afterwards. And
I suspect Athanasius to be e
he tells it first of any man in his second Apology
written in the wilderness at the same time that
he broached the story of the death of Arius. ffor
if he knew it to be fals (as he did if it were
so) then he was not imposed upon others, but told
In all the times of the controversy about e
Council of Tyre I cannot find that Athana
sius or his friends pretended that Arsenius
had been seen alive by any living witnesses
The Councils of Alexandria Rome & Sardica
knew nothing of any such witnesses. But
afterwards when Athanasius was condemned
by all the world & so saw that e
Arsenius would not any longer support e
beleife that Arsenius was alive, he put about
a story amongst his credulous followers as
if Arsenius himself in person had been found
alive first in Egypt
the story of his first finding thus
Now that Arsenius was hidden [by the
Meletians] that they might make his murder
more probable, his friends who were with him
testified. ffor in seeking him we found one of
them who wrote to Iohn (another actor in
the same fals accusation) the following Letter.
I would have you know that Athanasius sent
his Deacon into Thebais to search all places for
Arsenius. Pecysius the presbyter & Sylvanus the
Monck of Hypseles being first found confessed that
Arsenius was with us. But when we had learnt
that, we caused him to be put into a ship &
carried down with Helias the Monck into the lower
parts [of Egypt.] And soon after the Deacon
with some others coming upon us went into r
house & found him not by reason that we had
sent him as was said into the lower parts: But
me & Helias the Monck who
they carried away with them to Alexandria &
brought us before the governour & I could not
deny but confessed that he lived & was not killed
The same thing also was confessed by the Monck
who
make known to you these things that you may
not accuse Athanasius. For they said that he was
alive & hidden with us & it was made known to
all Egypt & cannot any longer be concealed. I
Paphnutius a Monck of the same house who have
written this Epistle salute you much. Farewell.
Now the truth of this Epistle I suspect for
these reasons. ffirst because Athanasius & his
ffriends knew nothing of this evidence in the
Councils of Alexandria Rome & Egypt Sardica.
So many living witnesses that Arsenius was alive
& the proof thereof by some of those witnesses
before the governour of Egypt, would have
made a much greater noise in the Council of
Tyre & afterwards then el
Arsenius: & yet Athanasius & his friends at that
time insisted only upon the evidence of this Letter
representing that Arsenius himself had shewed
by his letter that he was alive & intended no
other evidence of his being alive & complaining
that e
us notwithstanding that letter. This was all that
Athanasius & his friends had then to allege as we
have shewed out of the letter of the Council
And secondly I suspect the letter of Pinnes
because it represents things contrary to what
Athanasius & his friends did in the Letter
of the Council of Alexandria.
told that Arsenius at first lay hid in upper
Egypt till the Deacon of Athanasius upon search
discovered him & that he then retired into e
lower Egypt & soon after, as Athanasius adds,
wrote his famous Letter. But in the Letter
of et
the accusers of Athanasius were not ashamed
to affirm him the murderer of one who was
in a remote place divided from e
by journeys both by sea & land, living in a
region at that time unknown to all men, &
being hidden by them & translated as far as
could be into another world untill he made
himself known by his letter. /
And lastly the stories of finding Arsenius
first in Egypt & then at Tyre are of a kind
& were told by the same man at the same
time & therefore must stand &
This famous letter pretended to be written
by Arsenius after he had for some time lain
hidden runs thus.
To Athanasius the blessed Pope, Arsenius
Bishop of the City of Hypselita ch
under Meletius, & to e
much health in the Lord.
And we loving peace & union the
lick Church ch
cal canon according to the ancient law: do write
to you beloved Pope promising in the name of e
Lord that we will not hence forward communi
cate with Schismaticks & such as are not in peace the
or Presbyters or Deacons; neither will we assemble rth
letters of peace nor receive such letters from
them nor the
Metropolitan Bishop make any decree about Bishops
or about any other common ecclesiastical opinion;
but we will give place to eecclesiasti canons after the manner of Ammonianus,
cal
Tyrannus, Plusianus & the other Bishops. Moreover
we beseech r
to us as soon as may be & also to rhopy we now
stand to ether
Bishops of those regions. And we beleive that by r
remain firm & indissolvable to the end according to
the will of God the Lord of all things, through
Iesus Christ r
is under you we & they that are th
& so soon as God shall permit we will come to
your humanity. I Arsenius wish you may long
fare well most blessed Pope.
Now the truth of this Letter I suspect, first
because it has not the form & humour of a free
letter but looks like some formal covenant
of submission drawn up by a Lawyer to be impo
sed on Arsenius, or like a recantation imposed
on him by a magistrate. Then because Arsenius
had he been of the mind here exprest would cer
tainly have made good his promise of coming to
whole Roman world for many years together
to continue in war & confusion about his death
but have speedily shewn himself to e
& to e
of his dear friend Athanasius. Thirdly because
were this letter genuine Athanasius must have
known how to write back to Arsenius & conse
quently knowing where he was would have sent
& fetcht him by fair meanes or by foule &
shewed him alive to the Emperor. Lastly be
cause I find this letter directly contradicted
by Athanasius himself. ffor he in his Apology
pag 783 tells e
ner.Arsenius, saith he, was first found hid in Egypt: afterwards those of o. This
When Athanasius was accused of the above
mentioned crimes by Ischyras, he pretended t
Ischyras became penitent & wrote the follow
ing Letter.
Seing upon my coming to you Lord Bishop
to be received into the Church, you chid me for
what I had heretofore spoken, as if I did that
on my own accord, I have therefore sent you
this Apology in my writing that you might know
that there was force done to me & that I was
beaten by Isaac & Heraclides & Isaac of Leotis
& by their companions. But I calling God to wit
ness upon this do say for my excuse that I am
conscious of none of those things done by you of
which they speak. ffor neither was there any cup
broken nor holy Table overthrown, but all these
calumnies they urged me to by force. These things I apologize for my selfe & give you in writing desiring to be one of yo.
Now this Letter I suspect because it looks
as if contrived rather for the interest of Atha
nasius then that of Ischyras, & seems more like
a formal recantation or certificate then a free
Letter, & also conteins a ridiculous story. For who ever went
sers or witnesses by forcing or beating them?
And were a false accuser or witness so procured
tis not likely that after his discovering the kna
very he would go on in accusing or witnessing
as Ischyras did to e
make Ischyras so hearty in the cause?
And further if Ischyras went to Athanasius
to be reconciled to him & received into communion
as this letter represents, he went th
either to confess his fault or not. If to confess,
how came Athanasius to let him go th
his confession before witnesses? If not to confess,
how could he hope to be pardonned & received by
Athanasius? And afterwards, if he sent this Letter
of confession, how came Athanasius then to neglect
sending for him & making his advantage of the op
portunity? Would Athanasius send up & down e
world to seek Arsenius & not accept of Ischyras
when he offered to come in, but content himself th
But that ch
to Letters. They are set to no sort of writings but
such as are designed for evidence in legal proceedings
& therefore shew that the author of this letter de
signed it for evidence: that is, he designed by those
witnesses to make it evidence for Athanasius against
Ischyras. For there was no need of such evidence
against any body else. Were these witnesses added
to give credit to thee ls with Athanasius?
There was no need of that. Were they added to
give credit to it with others? Then the designe
of it was not to make an interest thIschyras
Athanasius for Ischyras but to make an interest
with others for Athanasius against Ischyras. Had
Ischyras been penitent & desired to be reconciled to
Athanasius as this Letter represents, he would not
have sent a certificate to Athanasius against him
self, but have wrote an insinuating letter in gene
ral termes, & have reserved himself to be usefull
to Athanasius as an evidence upon condition of par
don & reconciliation; & no doubt Athanasius would
have accepted the condition th
There is another thing ch
piciously. For many persons are named as witnesses
but
man call his friends together to be witnesses to a
writing & not make them set their hands to it?
If Ischyras wrote this Letter he either designed it
for evidence or he did not. If he did not he would
have made no mention of witnesses. If he did he
would certainly have caused them to set their hands
to it. It looks therefore as written by somebody
else who had a mind to give credit to it by
witnesses, but knew not how either to procure
or counterfeit their hands.
And the suspicion is much encreased by con
sidering that the truth of this letter was never
any of the witnesses. The Letter was written before
the Council of Tyre & by consequence alleged in that
Council, & in the Councils of Alexandria Rome & Sar
dica where Athanasius was present: but no witnesses
that I can read of were ever brought to prove it tee
friends did try to get thee Letters proved in the
Council of Tyre & on other occasions or not. If
they did not, it argues a guilty conscience. ffor
without any examination of the business they took
it for granted that e
them & therefore did not beleive the reality of
their testimony to the Letters. But if they did try
& upon examining the witnesses found them against
this Letter, then is the Letter false by the concur
rent testimony of those very witnesses cited to prove
it true. And this is to me a very great argument
of suspicion. For the case is as if a man should
produce a bond wherein tis written that the party
pretended to be bound signed it before such &
such witnesses but whose hands are not to the bond,
& before a Iudge should produce none of the wit
nesses, but confess that he never spake th
or that they are all against him being the Defend
ants friends, & only plead that they are good wit
nesses because in the bond (pretended to be sent in
a letter to the Plaintiff) tis written that the De
fendant signed it in their presence. So impudent a
case as this was scarce ever brought before a civil Magistrate. Nor can I find that it was allowed
in the ecclesiastical Courts of Athanasius's own
party, except in the Council of Alexandria
wherein Athanasius himself presided. For tho e
Councils of Rome & Sardica in their Letters plead
much against Ischyras, yet his recantation (ch
the main thing against him if true) they do not say
one word of, & by consequence confided not in it.
When Athanasius being banished first by Constantine the
great & then by his son Constantius appealed from the
Council of Tyre to the Pope, & the eastern Bishops were
thereupon summoned first to e
to e
but would not subject themselves to e
the Pope & jurisdiction of the Western Bishops: Constan
tius Emperor of the West by the impulse of the impulse
of the western Bishops wrote a letter to his brother
Constantius, threatning that if he would not restore
Athanasius & animadvert upon his adversaries, he would
come himself & restore him by force. Whereupon Con
stantius being reduced to great straits called many
of the eastern Bishops together & they advised him
that it was better to let Athanasius have his Church
then undertake a civil war. Constantius therefore in
vited Athanasius back by courteous letters, & a
while after Vrsatius & Valens two Bishops of Panno
nia who had been principal actors in the condemnati
on of Athanasius were said to have written voluntari
ly two letters, e
they declare that they desire his communion, the other
at Rome to e
Having an opportunity of by orour brother & fellow Presbyter Musæus who is going to yo r your humanity, dear brother we salute you much by him from Aquileia, & wish that you may read orour epistle in health: whereof you will make us certain, if you please to write back to us. ffor that we have peace wthwith you & ecclesiastical communion you may know by these orour letters. The dDivine Providence preserve you Deare
Since it is manifest that we formerly insinuated by orour Letters many heighnous heinous things concerning Athanasius, & being convened by y e the letters of yoryour Holiness, could not give an account of what we had signified: we confess to yoryour Holiness in the presence of all the Presbyters orour brethren that all things wchwhich heretofore came to orour ears concerning Athanasius are false & feigned & of no force. And therefore we most willingly embrace the communion of the said Athanasius, especially since your Holiness according to yoryour innate goodness hath been pleased to pardon orour error. We profess also ytthat if at any time the Oriental Bishops or even Eusebius himself shall wthwith an evil mind call us into judgment concerning this thing, we will not go thither without yoryour consent. And the heretick Arius & his followers who say there was a time when the Son was not & affirm that the Son is of nothing & deny that he was before all ages, as by orour former confession wchwhich we made at Millain, so now & always we anathematize.
The second of these two epistles is said by Hilary
to have been written
vening at Sirmium against Photinus two years
after the Council of Millain & by consequence
four years after the Council of Sardica. ffor the Council of Sardica met A.C. 347, &
tavius & Valesius agree th
this Council of Sirmium in the year 351,
in his Epistle to Constantius written after George
was made Bishop of Alexandria, & by consequence A.
C. 356 or A.C. 357, reccons eight years from the
Council of Millain to e
& therefore the c
C. 348 or 349.
Now this second Epistle I suspect for many
reasons.
1. It is a confession attested by nameless witnesses,
& was never proved.
2. The crime is too great & shamefull for Bishops
to acknowledge voluntarily as Valens & Vrsatius are
here represented to have done. acted have acted in theth
3. Eusebius who is mentioned in the Epistle
dead some yeares before. And if th
men to avoid this objection you write Athanasius for Eusebius, the sense will be hard. ffor Athanasius will
be accused of an evil mind; which is contrary to the
designe of the Epistle.
4. The saying that Valens & Vrsatius being re
quired to prove the things charged against Athana
sius could not do it is not consistent with the pro
ceedings in the Council of Sardica. For there five
of the six Bishops then living who had been sent
from e
business of Ischyras (two of ch
& Vrsatius) propounded to e
equal number of both parties should be sent again
to Mareote to examin things anew, & if the crim
crime did not appear, they five would be excom
municated, but if it did, the like number of the
western bishops who created the disturbance should
be excommunicated by the eastern. But the western
Bishops would not accept of equal terms. The eastern
must submit to e
diction of the western or go for criminals.
5. Pope Liberius a
in behalf of Athanasius, makes no mention of this
confession of Vrsatius & Valens, as he would surely
have done had it been newly made to his Prede
cessor
6. The great Council of Ariminum a
Letter to Constantius the Emperor, accused Vrsatius
& Valens of a Confession made at Millain saying
that after they had been excommunicated upon sus
picion of Arianism they begged pardon & were ab
solved at e
of the Pope. But of this other Confession made two
years after at Rome upon occasion of the convening
of the Council of Sirmium they make no mention, tho
been true.
7. Vrsatius & Valens were excommunicated but
once, that is to say in the Council of Sardica &
one excommunication admits of but one absolution
If you place the Council of Millain before
the Council of Sardica the first confession & abso
lution will be before the western bishops ex
communicated any of the eastern for Arianism
& the second before Athanasius went from Rome
into the east: both ch
the second confession was afterwards sent to Atha
nasius out of the west by Paulinus bishop of
Treves. And further the Council of Sardica in
their letters whereby they declare Valens &
Vrsatius excommunicate for Arianism, would
have taken notice of their former excommuni
cation recantation & absolution had there been
any such thing. But if you place the Council
of Millain after e
ought to do, then Valens & Vrsatius will re
cant, & be absolved twice from one excommu
nication: & ch
Bishop of Rome alone will absolve them from
what a Council, where he himself was present
by his Legates, had absolved them before. ffor
their second recantation plainly respects the
proceedings of the Council of Sardica. So then
tation.
Philostorgius
by the Emperors threatning, came to Tyre, he would
not submit to stand in judgment, but sent in a
big-bellied woman ch
sebius of Adultery: hoping that by the tumult ch
tried. But when Eusebius asked her if she knew
the man & whether he was amongst the Bishops
then present, she answered that she was not so
senseless as to accuse such men of base lust & by
those words discovered the fraud. This story the
other Historians Sozomen & Theodoret
the whore was hired by the Eusebians to accuse
Athanasius & the fraud detected by one of Atha
nasius's friends to the confusion of his accusers
But this last story was unknown to Athanasius &
his friends in the times next after the Council
of Tyre. For in the Letters of the Councils of
Alexandria, Rome & Sardica, they mention it not
tho they omit nothing ch
Council: & this story had it been true would have
made more against it then any thing else they say.
Nor does Athanasius mention it in all his works.
Whence I suspect his friends sometime after the
writing of his Apologies inverted the story of the
accusation.
When Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria
he was soon accused of tyrannical behaviour to
wards the Meletians so as th
to break the communion cup of Ischyras a Mele
tian Presbyter in Mareote then performing sacred
rites & to subvert the Altar & cause the Church
to be demolished. This was the true accusation
as I find by the
dica recorded in Hilaries fragments.
On the other hand Athanasius & his party
no church, the day not the Lords day; that Atha
nasius went not thither himself but only sent
Macarius who found Ischyras not celebrating e
sacrament but sick in bed & charged him not
to proceed in those things; & that Ischyras, so
soon as well, fled to the Meletians & Eusebians
who thereupon composed the accusation. But were
this representation genuine
no colour for framing an accusation. For cunning
men never venture to frame fals accusations
without some considerable colour of circumstances
handsomly laid together. The mystery therefore
I take to be this.
I find by a letter of Constantine the great
to Athanasius that Athanasius & Macarius were
both of them accused: & by eche
eastern Bishops wrote at Philippopolis compared the
Acts of e
Macarius was sent by Athanasius he found Ischy
ras sick in bed but that Athanasius was accused
for coming also himself when Ischyras was
administring the Eucharist & for breaking the
communion cup & overturning the altar the
accusation) Macarius was sent first to forwarn
Ischyras of executing the office of a Presbyter;
& afterwards when he would not desist, Atha
nasius coming at a time proper to find him in e
act overthrew the sacred things & caused the place
to be demolished, Macarius perhaps assisting him.
Now the accusation lying only against this last
Athanasius to acquit himself confounds this time th
the Council of Tyre where the accusation was
understood; but amongst the credulous western Bishops
& others of his own party) that Macarius went alone thth
place chch
the Lords day & only reproved him eChalice by con
sequence that e
him on the Lord's day in a Church administring the Eu
charist & subverted the sacred things was a figment.
Now if Athanasius shuffled in making this defence, it's
plain that he was gravelled and wanted a just defense.
Which is enough to decide e
SozomenAthanasius was accused by all in common that he acquired the Bishoprick by the perjury of certain Bishops when all the Bishops had agreed before that no man should be ordeined before they had ended the brawls . ffor Eusebius
Vpon the death of Alexander therefore there
being gathered out of Thebais & all Egypt forty &
four bishops, as the dthey agreed under oath that no man should be ordeined before they had ended those brawls & then they should elect a new Bishop by common consent:
Nor indeed was Athanasius capable of being
ordained, for he was but a Deacon, & the Canon
constituted by Mark the Evangelist & constantly ob
served till that time, was that there should be
twelve Presbyters of that Church, & that out of them
And besides he was scarce of age for such a dig
nity. ffor he was then but a youth scarce 25 years
old. Whence the cO wickedness! He a Bishop or he a Boy?
To palliate these things the Athanasians have
feigned as if Alexander upon his death
commended Athanasius for his successor & Athanasius
out of modesty then hid himself. But this as it
does not excuse the matter so it looks like a story
of later date. ffor the above-mentioned Council of
Alexandria knew nothing of it, tho composed of A
thanasius & all his Bishops. ffor Athanasius convened
them in his own defenc
they seem to omit nothing ch
& particularly defend his election, there is not a
word of this story.
By comparing all circumstances its more to be
suspected that Athanasius in the controversy between
the Clergy of Alexander about the Son of God, in
flamed differences, thereby to throw out part of
the Clergy & make room for himself & his friends:
& when he had thus gotten to be Deacon, the re
putation & interest he had got with e
his friends by that controversy served him to in
vade the Bishoprick. ffor when the people of his
party shutting up themselves with certain of the
Bishops in a Church, importuned those Bishops for
many days together to ordain him, I do not hear
that he sided with those Bishops against the people
This at least is certain, that the Bishops ch
ed him resisted for many days together & were all
that time kept prisoners in a church by the Mob of
his party till they yeilded. And whereas his adversa
ries objected that those Bishops were forced to ordein
him contrary to their oaths; its observable that he
& his Bishops in the Council of Alexandria make
no answer to that part of the Objection.
The arguments for the justness of the sentence are
very great.
1. The Councill of Tyre was a very full one. So
that if some Bishops would have been partial there were
others numerous enough to reduce them to modesty. And
if it be objected that the Council was not free because
the Emperor was present there by his Deputy with
guards of soldiers: the objection lies stronger against
the Council of Nice where the Emperor was present
in person & that with a designe to influence the
decision of the Council: whereas at Tyre his Deputy
was present only to see peace kept. The strange
heats at Nice between the Bishops, admon
Emperor to prevent the like at Tyre, & if he had
not done so there could have been nothing but con
fusion, a
Egypt to create disturbance & behaving himself very
turbulantly in his tryall b
their circulatory letters complained.
2. Its objected that at the examination of wit
nesses at Mariote there was present but one party.
The accuser Ischyras, say they, was there; but the
Defendents Athanasius & Macarius were both absent
nor were any of the Presbyters of Athanasius allow
ed to be present at the examination thô they de
sired it. Well but if the accusers of Athanasius
brought several witnesses to Tyre as no doubt they
did & after both parties had been heard face to
face the Council had a mind to give themselves the
outmost satisfaction by sending to the place such
persons as they thought fit, some to cite witnesses
others to take depositions, but none to act as Iudges
or accusers, & if the Delegates at their return
acted the part of witnesses before the Council &
the Council as Iudges heard the evidence of these
witnesses between Athanasius & Ischyras; is the Coun
cil to be blamed for this? For that this was the true
case is manifest by the l
Alexandria, wherein Athanasius & the Egyptian
Bishops say that c γενέσθαι παροντήμενοι.
Tyre were not ashamed of Iudges to become wit
nesses. Had Athanasius desired that witnesses might
be examined for him as well as against him, &
nesses ch
cite e
justice have denyed such a request. But he pretended
not to have any witnesses: for he & his friends
plained that their witnesses were not examined. All
their complaint was that they were not admitted to
except against the witnesses of Ischyras, as being either
heathens or Catechumeni, or Arians or Meletians or
Colluthians, or persons suborned
the friends of
exclaim against the Delegates for examining all those
sorts of people as if heathens were not as good witnesses
in matters of fact as any body else. So then whilst
Athanasius affirmed there was no Church demolished
no altar overturned, no cup broken, the day not
Sunday, the place no church & he himself not
there, he could produce no witnesses to prove what
he affirmed but Ischyras produced many upon the
place to prove the contrary. The Presbyters of
Athanasius sent to the Council of Tyre in a letter
by some of their members all the evidence they pretended to
ny. This evidence (if men can give evidence in
their own cause) the Council of Tyre had before
them, to compare it with other evidence to e
trary & surely knew what stress to lay upon it.
So that I see not what was wanting to enable
them to judge righteously.
3. When the Legates returned from Tyre &
Athanasius was fully heard & condemned, he fled
from Tyre & appealed to the Emperor Constantine
the great. Whereat the Emperor by an angry Let
ter summoned the Council to come & give an
account of their proceedings. But they sent only
six Legates. And then the Emperor heard over all
the cause over again between Athanasius & the Le
gates, approved the proceedings of the Council & banished
Athanasius. Tis true that Athanasius represents that
the Legates feigned a new calumny against him
whereby the Emperor being incensed banished him in
a passion without hearing the cases of Arsenius &
Ischyras: but the eighty eastern Bishops in the Letter chch
Philippopolis to e
relating how six Bishops who were sent to Mari
ote returned to Tyre & confirmed the truth of their
accusations, they add.
um dignam pro criminibus sententiam [Patres] dicunt.
Propter quod Tyro fugiens Imperatorem appellat
Audit etiam Imperator, qui
omnia ejus flagitia recognoscens, sua illum sen
tentia in exilium deportavit.
4. ffive years after was the Council of Alex
andria of eighty Bishops called by Athanasius
against the Council of Tyre: but whilst they
examined not the cause between Athanasius &
his accusers nor sent to Mariote to examin
witnesses but relied on the feigned Letters of
Arsenius & Ischyras & such other reports as Atha
nasius & some
never proved, & whilst Athanasius himself
sided in the Council & most probably penned
their letter: what they did can amount to
nothing more then prejudice. Neither did the
Councils of Rome & Serdica examin the cause
between Athanasius & his accusers or send to
Mariote to inform themselves, but relied upon
the credit of the cSerdic Alexandria
& that of e
also influenced by ambition, their designe being
to make the Pope universal Bishop, & under him
to exercise jurisdiction over the Eastern Chur
ches. For the Pope summoned the Bishops of those
Churches to the Council of Rome to be judged &
when they checkt him for his ambition & refused
to come & subject themselves the Council of
Rome absolved Athanasius th
process, as if the Eastern Bishops by not subjecting
themselves & coming to plead had acknowledged
themselves guilty. Afterwards the Council of
Sardica proceeded upon the same ground, excom
municating the chief of the eastern Bishops
because they would not come to submit themselves
& making a d
from all the world to the Pope. This intermixing
a prejudice upon the proceedings for Athanasius &
makes them irregular & voyd. And the prejudice
is increased by the case of Marcellus who was de
posed by the Eastern Bishops for heresy & absol
ved & justified by the Councils of Rome & Sardi
ca & yet afterwards acknowledged by all the
world to be guilty of the heresy for ch
Rome & Sardica neither acted judicially nor
without prejudice, then has there been nothing
done to dissolve the judgment of the Council of
Tyre & therefore that Council is still in force.
5 The proceedings against Athanasius are
further cleared by a proposal made at the Coun
cil of Sardica by five of the six Bishops which
were sent from Tyre to Mareote, namely that
an equal number of Bishops should be sent by
both parties to the places where Athanasius had
committed his crimes to examin things anew,
& if the report t
to the Council of Tyre appeared to be false
they would stand excommunicated without complain
ing to any body; but if it were found true,
then five of those Bishops who abetted Atha
nasius should be excommunicated & complain to
no body. But this equal condition, the friends of
Athanasius durst not accept of.
6. About six years after the Council of
Sardica, vizt A.C. 353 Constantius being now Empe
rour of both East & West called a Council at Arles
in Gallia to have the condemnation of Athanasius
subscribed & for that end b
Montanus invited Athanasius to his presence, c
that his cause should be heard anew before this
Council for the satisfaction of the Western Bishops.
But Athanasius d
that of the Council of Cæsarea before in the reign
of Constantine the great. In this Council e
Legates Vincentius of Capua & Marcellus proposed that
for the peace of the Churches they were ready to sub
scribe the condemnation of Athanasius provided the Here
that they were not to go upon other business it belong
ed not to them to prescribe e
upon other business then what the Emperor had conve
ned them for, all the Council subscribed except Pau
linus of Treves who was therefore banished. And
thereupon Pope Liberius f
complained that he beleived that the Gospel of God
might have been preserved by his Legate Vincen
tius but yet he not only failed of obteining the pro
posals he was to insist on, but was brought over to
subscribe. Two years after this, another Council
was called at Millain of 300 Bishops & Athana
sius sent for by Diogenes who came th
of the Province & forced Athanasius to reg
was sent to bring Athanasius by force, but being
resisted by the people returned without him. In
this Council therefore the Bishops all subscribed
readily except Lucifer Calaritanus the Popes Le
gate & Eusebius Vercellensis. Eusebius h
before the Council the Nicene creed promising to
do what they desired if that were first subscribed:
but when the sentence of k
on as the business of the Council, he preswaded Di
onysius of Millan that the Nicene faith was struck
at, & fraudulently procured his name to be wiped
out of the subscriptions. Whereupon these three
were banished. In the beginning of the next year
Syrianus after being sent with an armed force to
take Athanasius & place George in his room, after
he had staid a while at Alexandria attempted to
take him, & the same year a Council wa
at Bituris in Gallia. But Athanasius after some
resistance escaped & the Bishops now convened
subscribed his condemnation except Hilary & Rhoda
nius m
were first ratified; but for refusing otherwise to
subscribe they were banished. The next year Ho
sius subscribed at Sirmium but Liberius Bishop of
Rome suffered two years banishment & then sent n
which he writes thus. Ego Athanasium non defendo, sed quia susceperat illum bonæ memoriæ Iulius Episcopus decessor meus, verebar ne forte ab aliquo prævaricator judicarer. At ubi cognovi
7. And if it was not enough for Athanasius to
be thus condemned by all the world, I shall it may
be considered whether he was not also condemned by
himself. For if the Council of Cæsarea was convened
by Constantine the great to hear his cause & he would
not go thither thô commanded by the Emperor, & the
Council waited long for his coming; if the next
year being threatned by the Emperor he came to Tyre the Council of Tyre unwillingly & brought
with him a great multitude to create disturbances
that judgment might not proceed; if when he came
there he refused to stand in judgment (as all the
(all chp
circulatory Letters;) if in like manner he refused
to appear before
Emperor sent an armed power to bring he
that power & fled, & if also both before & after
judgment he feigned several stories & Letters to
justify himself; & if flying from justice & feigning
false excuses be arguments of a guilty conscience:
we must allow that Athanasius by doing these things
has betrayd himself guilty. The very feigning of all & overthrows all
that has was ever said or done for his justifica
tion either by himself or others. ffor it resolves
all his defense into a figment; & such a defense
when detected is equipollent to a confession of
guilt.
wherein they declared his condemnation charged him th
turbulent behaviour in the Council.
his behalf replied that he was petulant, arrogant
& the author of discord & sedition.
The Council of Philippopolis represented (as you may
see at large in their letter to e
his return from Gallia he was more turbulent &
tyrannical then before creating & setting up Bishops
against Bishops in the eastern churches where he had
no authority to intermeddle & being as exord
in Egypt.
When he was ready to be banished by the Empe
rour a second time, he called the Council of Alex
andria & together with them wrote a letter to all
the world, in ech
put all their friends into a tumult against the eastern
churches & by consequence against their Emperor.
ffor after a long complaint against the Eastern c
ches they thus conclude th
& destroy them by open force & violence. Therefore,
say they, how these things are not to go unrevenged even you beloved may see. ffor they are grievous & remote from the doctrine of Christ. ffor this cause therefore we being assembled together have written in common to you praying your prudence in Christ to receive this our contestation & to grieve together with our fellow Bishop Athanasius & to conceive indignation against the Eusebians who endeavour these things, that wickedness & malice may not prevail against the Church. ffor we pray & implore
A while after when their Emperor sent an
armed force to displace Athanasius & place Gregory
in his room (for Athanasius & his party would ne
ver yeild to any thing but force) he shut himself up
in a church with a multitude against the soldiers
& when they could defend the Church no longer
left it on fire: of ch
polis make this mention. Constituto jam in Athanasij locum ex judicio c Concilij sancto et integro sacerdote, ut barbarus hostis, ut pestis sacrilega, adductis gentilium populis Dei templum incendit, altare comminuit, et clam exit de civitate occulte.
When Athanasius was thus displaced, he wrote
a circulatory Letter to all his friends to stirr them
up to sedition & revenge. The Letter beginns thus.
The things we have suffered are grievous & in
tollerable & cannot be sufficiently declared; but yet
that I may in brief express their grievousness, it's
proper to remind you of a history out of sacred
writ. A
upon the greatness of the indignity …… sent her body cut in pieces to all the Tribes of Israel, that they might look upon this common injury as done not only to him but to them all & that either if they compassionated his case they might revenge it or else if they neglected the wickedness they might be ashamed. Now the messengers told the fact & they that heard & saw it said there was never any such thing done since Israel came out of Egypt. Therefore all the Tribes were moved & all of them as if each had suffered were gathered together. In conclusion, they that had committed this wickedness were invaded & conquered & made an anathema by all. For they that came together respected not the kindred of the transgressors but the wickedness. You know the story brethren & what is reported in the scriptures concerning it, & I will say no more of it seing I write to them that know it & am earnest to shew you things Then after many things spoken
And this is enough to let you see the spirit of
the man. For this shews plainly how for the sake
of a Bishoprick he laboured to set the whole Roman
world on a flame, to make a schism between the eastern
& western churches & to raise a civil war against
his own Emperor. ffor this end therefore he fled from
Alexandria to Rome & ceased not to incense the west
ern Bishops till by their interest the
Emperor Constans, he procured a Council to be called
at Sardica wherein 'twas designed that the eastern
Bishops should stand at eged by the western in order to their subversion. And
when this usurpation would not be yeilded unto but
ended in that schism between the east & west ch
Athanasius & his Alexandrine Council sollicited: he
ceased not till by the same interest the Emperor
Constans was prevailed with to threaten a civil war
upon his brother Constans
Athanasius. Thus did this Egyptian Levite go on
to revenge the loss of his deare Spouse the Bishopric
of Alexandria, but the Eastern Bishops being men
of a more Christian temper advised their Emperor
to peace & so Athanasius was again restored to
the mistress of his affections.
One would think he was now sufficiently re
venged of his Emperor, & yet this great spirit
stopt not here, but afterwards sollicited the Tyrant
Magnentius by a letter: che
& death of that Tyrant was found amongst his
papers. Athanasius indeed in his first Apology saith
this Letter was not written by him but feigned by them
that found it: but he that could feign other mens letters
could deny his own. In this Apology Ath he answers
three Objections, the first that he had stirred up the
Constantius, the second that he had endeavoured also
by that l
& the third that he did not afterwards come into
the west
messengers. All these things were seditious in a very
high degree & to these he endeavours to acquit him
self of them by pleading Not guilty, &
did not stir up Constans, to e
did not write that Letter & to e
did not know it was the Emperors will that he
should come into e
sengers ch
he represents) a lying letter from the Empe
ror, the next delivering none at all. If you This was his insincere way of answering.
can beleiv
ffor what ever he pretends I must beleive that he
who wrote two publick circulatory Letters to stir
up the western Empire against the Eastern did
endeavour also privately to stir it up, & he that refused as well in the reign of Magnentius as in that
of Constans. For they who found his letter to Mag
nentius amongst the papers of that Tyrant were
good witnesses against him & his denyal of the fact
amounts to no more then a Prisoners pleading
not guilty to invalidate the evidence of good
witnesses. I must beleive also that he who refused
to obey Constantine the great was as refractory
to Constantius, as Sozomen tells us he really was.
For to me its seems incredible that Constantius
should assemble two Councils in the west to hear
his cause & send for him thrice, first by
with a Letter & then by two other successive
messengers th
& yet not understand all this while that he
was sent for. The relation of Sozomen
I rather take to be true, ch
When the first Messenger [Montanus] brought
the Emperors Letters, Athanasius & his friends
were extreamly troubled, thinking it not safe for
him to go nor without danger for him to stay.
But the advice for his staying prevailed & so
the Messenger returned th
26 months] another messenger [Diogenes] being sent from
the Emperor & coming with
vince, forced Athanasius from the City & made a
sharp war upon his Clergy. But when the people
of Alexandria resumed courage, this messenger also
seing the people prepared to fight returned without
compassing his message. Not long after the Roman Legi
ons were called out of Egypt & Libya [to Alexandria
by Syrianus the chief commander] & it being told t
Athanasius was hid in the Church called Theon, Syria
nus & Hilary who was sent to hasten this business,
taking the soldiers brake into the Church suddenly
at an unexpected time of the night to seek for Atha
nasius but found him not. Thus far Sozomen. Atha
nasius represents that he & his people were passing
the night together in devotion but by a Letter ch
they wrote four days after (vizt e
nuary) to all the people under Athanasius to stirr
them up to their assistance, I find that they re
sisted the soldiers & by consequence were armed
to guard their Bishop & that they kept the Church
by force & there hung up the arms of the vanquish
ed soldiers in triumph. Which is a notable instance
of the seditious spirit of Athanasius & his followers.
The Letter is in the works of Athanasius p. 866, &
begins thus.
We have long since protested concerning the nocturnal invasion w. Then for stirring up
The City being thus inflamed by these in
cendiaries, there followed other broiles before it
could be quieted of all chch
Constantius, makes this mention.Recordare, Constanti, de scelerum tuorum memoria recenti quam tibi in Civitate Alexandrinorum inussisti: quantos per abrupta, una tincta subscriptionis tuæ dejecerit, quantos gladio demeti fecerit, quantos fame siti.
Nor were these stirs of short continuance.
ffor Athanasius exclaiming against the proceedings
of Constantius as a vehement persecution & cele
brating all those who were slain or taken prison
ers, as martyrs & Confessors, plaid the trumpeter
to the rebellion & kept it up for a good while
as you may understand by that railing book ch
Hilary wrote against Constantius in ch
this passage. Adest mecum Alexandria tot concussa bellis, tantum commotarum expeditionum expavens tumultum. Brevius enim adversum Persam quam adversum eam armis certatum est. Mutati Præfecti, electi Duces, corrupti populi, commotæ Legiones ne ab Athanasio Christus prædicaretur.
In short the Egyptians were so seditious
that afterwards when Valens would have ex
pelled Athanasius he could not effect it but
found it necessary to desist. For it was not
Alexandria alone but all Egypt & Libya ch
was inflamed by this sedition the people with
their Bishops & Presbyters being every where
stirred up by the above mentioned Letter
of the Alexandrians & getting into bodies in
the feild: whereupon at length followed
a skirmish in the wilderness like that
nocturnal one at Alexandria, as Athanasius
in his first Apology thus mentions.Whilst I was wondring, saith he,
What sort of Martyrs & Confessors those were ch
nasius so much celebrates in his works, you have already
heard & may further understand by what Athanasius says
of them in his epistle to the Moncks, where speaking first
of the Bishops ch
ed skirmish in the wilderness & then of the Bishops of all
Egypt Libya & Pentapolis ch
partly put to flight & partly taken prisoners &
who would not submit, he saith.Be it that against Athanasius & the other Bishops w. To the same purpose Athanasius has another
Now by the Egyptian martyrs & confessors you may
know what those were in other places: of all ch
Calaritanus
thus to Constantius. Mactasti quamplurimos in Alexandria, laniasti certos toto in orbe, disperdisti resistentes tibi varijs in locis. Sed hi omnes, quod tu audire minime vis, martyres sunt: illos omnes beatissimos tuo mactatos gladio in pa
To these you may add the six or seven bishops ba who were banished for not subscribing the condem
nished
nation of Athanasius. For they were deposed by Councils
of their own religion, & therefore suffered not for their
faith. They endeavoured to keep up a schism between the
eastern & western Churches, & so were banished as ene
mies to peace. They refused to debate upon those matters
for ch
might have their own matters first dispatcht, & so suffer
ed as polyticians for usurping upon the Emperors right.
They profered to comply if the Nicene creed might be
ratified & so acknowledged it lawfull to comply & by con
sequence were banished for resisting the higher powers where
it was their duty to obey
after
over, Athanasius & his friends falling into a rage at
the Emperors success, began to write railing books a
gainst him; & Athanasius indeed laboured to perswade
the Egyptians bishops by tyrannical that the Emperor
overcame the western bishops by tyrannical asperity
& terror; & yet the contrary is certainly true. For
Hilary,ch
time against the Emperor attributes the success to his
clemency. He calls this book a confession, & wishes that
he had wrote it in the reign of Nero or Dioclesian that
have endured any death whether to be sawn in pieces
with Isaiah, or burnt with the three children, or crucified,
or cast into the Sea: & then he goes on in these words.
fuisset, quia nec dubium relinqueretur quin persecutores
essent qui ad negandum te pænis, ferro, igni compellerent,
ne
liceret impendere. Pugnaremus enim in palam & cum
fiducia contra negantes, contra torquentes, contra jugulan
tes: et nos populi tui tanquam duces suos ad confessionis
religionem intelligentia persecutionis publicæ comitarentur.
At nunc pugnamus contra persecutorem fallentem, contra
hostem blandientem, contra Constantium Antichristum,
qui non dorsa cædit, sed ventrem palpat; non proscribit
ad vitam sed ditat ad mortem: non trudit carcere ad
libertatem sed intra palatium honorat ad servitutem:
non latera vexat sed cor occupat: non caput gladio
desecat, sed animam auro occidit: non contendit ne
vincatur, sed adulatur ut dominetur: Christum confite
tur ut neget: unitatem procurat ne pax sit: hæreses
comprimit ne Christiani sint: Ecclesiæ tecta struit ut
fidem destruat.ch
tius persecuted not the men but the faith, & did it not
by tortures, proscriptions prisons & deaths, but by deceiving
flattering tickling enriching & honouring the western
clergy & building their churches. And to the same pur
pose he adds a little after.
gloriosarum mortium peragis. Novo inaudito
triumpho de diabolo vincis et sine martyrio persequeris.
Plus crudelitati vestræ Nero, Deci, Maximiane debemus:
Diabolum enim per vos vicimus &c. At tu omnium cru
delitatum crudelissime damno majore in nos et venia
minore desævis. Subrepis nomine blandientis, occidis specie
religionis, impietatem peragis, Christi fidem Christi mendax
prædicator extinguis. Non relinquis saltem miseris excusati
ones, ut æterno judici suo pænas et aliquas laniatorum
corporum præferant cicatrices: ut infirmitas defendat
necessitatem. Scelestissime mortalium omnia ita tempe
ras ut excludas et in peccato veniam et in confessione
martyrium. Sed hæc ille pater tuus artifex humanarum
mortium docuit, vincere sine contumacia, jugulare sine gladio,
persequi sine infamia, odire sine suspicione, mentiri sine
intelligentia, profiteri sine fide, blandiri sine bonitate, agere
quid velis nec manifestare quæ velis.
in one & the same breath rail at Constantius as the most
cruel of persecutors, & yet declare that his
but love & kindness. By this means he had better success
then the heathen persecutors by violence, & therefore was in
Hilary's opinion more cruel, not to the bodies but to the
by almost all the world, & being thereby reduced to despair,
wrote this railing book, & to provoke the Emperor to kill
him presented it to him at Constantinople A.C. 360 (as
Baronius shews)
upon him & that of martyr upon himself. But altho this
railery was
punishable with death: yet the Emperor was so far from
being provoked to do any thing which might but look like
persecution that on the contrary he thereupon released
Hilary out of prison banishment & licensed him to return
home into Gallia, thus endeavouring to overcome evil
with good.
How far this Emperor was from being a persecutor
is further manifested by a story told of him by Gregory
Naziansen ch
The same Gregory Nazianzen also in his first Oration
against Iulian thus expostulates with the soul of the deceased
Constantius for making Iulian Emperor.
Imperatorum divinissime Christi
vehor ut tecum velut cum præsente at
lem, etsi multò præstantiorem te esse scio quam ut a me
reprehendi debeas, utpote qui Deo adjunctus sis, cælestis
gloriæ hæreditatem acceperis at
graris ut imperium cum meliore commute
hoc consilium suscepisti, qui omnes non tuæ solum sed
etiam superioris memoriæ Imperatores animi solertia &
acumine longe antecellebas?
sing Constantius for doing this, he saith:
tem dixi id aperte dixi quod eum crimine omni ac culpa
liberet. Cui enim vel ex ijs quibus non perinde cognitus
erat, dubium est quin ipse ob pietatem amorem
n
non modo illum [sc. Iulianum] aut totius generis honorem
imperij
ipsi omnibus
quicquam est charius, incollumitatem nostram ac salutem
haud illibenti animo prætulisset. Ne
quam ille Christianos crescere at
potentiæ
domitæ et subactæ gentes nec respublica præclaris
legibus constituta & gubernata nec pecuniarum copia,
nec gloriæ magnitudo, nec quod rex regum et esset et
appellaretur, nec omnia alia quibus hominum felicitas
declaratur, nec deni
tantum ipsi voluptatis afferebat, quantum ut et nos per
ipsum et per nos ipse túm apud Deum tum apud homines
floreremus ac firma semper et stabilis nobis potentia
permaneret. –––––––– Qui quidem et siquid nobis
exhibuit, non nostri contemptu id fecit nec ut nos
contumelia afficeret aut quod alijs quibusdam potius
quam nobis commendare cuperet: sed ut omnes in
unum coiremus, animorumt
nec per schismata inter nos dirempti at
Thus far Gregory. And this testimony coming freely from
the mouth of an enemy & an eye-witness of things, is
as great as can be desired. So Libanius a heathen &
therefore another enemy, gives him the same character.
For in his Oration called Basiliscus, after he had described
the behaviour of Constantius in war, he goes on thus.
alijs in rebus quam in bellicis fuit: ut de eo enunciare
liceat, Rex probus hic, bellator et acer. Non enim eò
se tum meliorem quam alij visum iri autumabat cum
magis quam cæteri sæviret, sed si magis quam alij
clementia gavisus, omnes nihilo secius superaret, &c.
In short, the vertues of this Emperor were so illustrious
that I do not find a better character given of any Prince
for clemency, temperance, chastity, contempt of popular
fame, affection to Christianity, justice, prudence, princely
carriage & good government, then is given to him even
by his very enemies. He kept up the imperial dignity
of his person to the height & yet reigned in the hearts
of his people, & swayed the world by their love to him,
so that no Prince could be farther from deserving the name
of a persecutor. Ammianus indeed objects the
his Vnkles, & prosecuted his victory over Magnentius too
far: but he did the first because they poisoned his father
& the last to secure not himself but Christianity from
the attempts of the heathens. And these objections being
removed, the character chChristianit
him is great; & agrees with that of Hilary Libanius &
Gregory Nazianzen. And if these four witnesses suffice not,
let me add a fift. ffor ✝
ciful & good & pious in all respects as the son of the
great & perfect & pious Constantine, this one thing excepted
that by the influence of his bishops he erred in the faith. All
& therefore knew what they wrote, & being his ene
mies would not favour him. ffor they wrote after
his death, & so were at liberty to speak their minds.
to be corrected.