Paradoxical Questions
concerning ye morals & actions of Athanasius & his followers

|See this copy by Sir I. Newton ending with these words ought to be corrected|

— – Quæst 1.
Whether yt ignominious death of Arius {in a bog-house} was not a story put about by Athanasius abo{ve twenty years} after his death?

How Arius died I reccon a question of {no great moment \but/} because it leads in \gives light/ \leads/ to other things of moment {I chuse to} propound it begin with it. This man \We are told in history {yt he}/ was {excommunicated by} the Council of Nice & & be \being banished by/ upon {recanting} was restored again into commu{nion} {illeg} of Tyre & then \banishished {sic}/ by {the Emperor Constantine ye great,} & soone \times/ after released \out of banishment/ by the {illeg} same Emperor, {& yt he} died at Constantinople {in a bog-house} miserably by ye effusion of his bowels \the day before he was to hav{e been absolved from excommunication}/. Now {this story of his} death was not spread abroad till about {24 years after his} death; & then it was first vented by his {greatest enemy} \Athanasius/ in a clandestine way & therefore {illeg} {illeg} be true The way by wch twas vented {illeg} {illeg}when he was ye last time deprived of {illeg} by Constantius & had newly escaped by flight {illeg} narrative of Arius his death & sent it {illeg} wildernesse of Egypt to be read by ye {illeg} \deserves to be called {illeg}. For Athanasius in ye end of ye reign of Constantius {being forced to} retire from his Bishopric into ye wildernesse of Egypt{, broached yt} story there amongst ye monks by sending {about a narra}tive in a timorous & cautious {manner}/ {charging} them not to transcribe it but to return it {back to him} so soon as they had read it. And this app{ears by a letter} wch he sent about to ye Monks some Monk {at ye same} time to those Monks in wch he writes {thus. For the} full condemnation & rejection of ye heresy {of ye Arians} ye are to believe that ye judgment of God {in ye death} of Arius is sufficient: wch ye have eve{n now learnt} by others. ffor what \God/ has constituted let no {man annull,} & whom he has condemned, who shall pro{nounce just. For} who from so great a signe knows not th{at this heresy} is hated of God, notwithstanding that it {is defended by} men. When therefore you have rea{d it pray for us} & exhort one another to it & strai{ght way send back} those things to us & publish no copy {thereof nor tran}scribe any for yorselves{, but be ye content as just usurers} with the bare {reading of it altho ye may} <1v> desire to read it often. ✝[1] ffor it is not safe that those {our} writings should come to posterity wch we composed as {bablers} & unlearned. Thus far Athanasius. He wrote \In/ this {epistle he} mentions his own flight & ye placing of George {in the chair} of Alexandria wch happened A.C. 356. He mentions also \the subscription of Liberius A.C. 358 &/ both the lapse & \ye/ death of Hosius, the first of wch happened at Sirmium A.C. 357, & the last two or three years \in or/ after the Council of {Arimi}num as Baronius proves: & therefore this epistle was {written} \between ye {illeg} Council of Ariminum & death of Constantius & by cons{equence A.C.}/ 359 or soon after that is 24 years after the ignominious death of Arius or above. ffor it was written before ye death {illeg} and before Constantine ye great as Athanasius re{illeg} this Epistle, & by consequence before ye year 337. |he died according to ye relation of Atha{nasius before} the Council of Tyre wch met A.C. 355, & {illeg} or {according to} ye relation of oth ye Ecl. historians soon after: & the Council of Arim{inum sat A.C. 359.}|

Now at ye same time that this \libel or/ narrative {of ye death} of Athanasius Arius went about in & of \in ye wilderness/ among ye {Moncks, one} Serapion upon \Serapion upon/ a dispute \arising/ whether Arius died in {communion wth} the Church, one Serapion wrote to Athanasius {to know his} opinion about it: to whom Athanasius returned {this answer.} I have read the letters of your Revere{nce in wch you} desire that I would write to you those thin{gs which are at} this time done against me, & concerning the {wicked Heresy} of ye Arians by wch we suffer these things, & {how Arius} ended his life. Two of these three requests I ha{ve willingly} performed & sent to yor piety what I have w{ritten to ye} Monks. ffor thence you may learn what relates {both to} or troubles & to the heresy. But concerning the third head, namely ye death of Arius, I much doubted wth my self about it, fearing least in doing it, I should seem to {insult} over the death of the man. But yet because a disputation amongst you concerning the history heresy ended in this ques{tion,} whether Arius died in communion with the Church: for terminating \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 selfe that ye miracle of his 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 Ma{carius the} Presbyter was there & I learnt it by his {relation.} By the Arius by ye endeavour of ye Eusebians {being} called to the Emperor Constantine & at his {entrance being} asked by the Emperor, if he kept ye faith {of the Catho}lick Church, affirmed upon oath, that he {beleived aright,} suppressing what he had been excommunic{ated for by} Alexander his Bishop & colour{ing over his profession} with scripture expressions. W{hen therefore he had sworn} that he had done none of {those things for wch he was} <2r> had been \was/ excommunicated by Ale was by Alexander excommunicated, the Emperor {dismist} him with these words: If thy faith be right, th{ou hast} well sworn, but if impious & yet thou hast swo{rn, God} will condemn thee for thy oath. Him therefore {thus de}parting from ye Emperor the Eusebians by the{ir usual} force would have introduced into ye Church: but {Alexander} Bishop of Constantinople contradicted it, saying,{that ye} Inventor of a heresy ought not to be received into communion. Then ye Eusebians threatned saying: As we h{ave} procured against your will that he should be called b{y} the Emperor, so to morrow notwithstanding tis again{st} yor mind we will bring Arius into communion with us in this Church. It was ye Sabbath \[that is Satturday]/ when they said this. Which Alexander hearing & being much trouble{d} he went into ye Church & lifting up his hands to {God} lamented & falling upon his face prayed on ye g{round} prayed. Macarius was then present praying wth him {and} hearing his words. Now he requested one of these things If Arius, saith he, must to morrow be brought into ye congregation, let thy servant now depart & destroy not ye righteous wth ye wicked: but if thou wilt spare thy Church (for I know thou wilt spare it) look upon ye words of ye Eusebians & give not thy inheritance into destruction & disgrace: & ✝ take away {Arius} least he being received into the Church his heresy may seem also to be received wth him & so impiety counted for piety. The Bishop having thus prayed went thence very thoughtful & there followed {a} thing wonderfull & incredible. ffor ye Eusebians threatning, ye Bishop prayed: but Arius confiding in the Eusebians & prating much, went into a Bog-house, as if to ease himself & ✝ suddenly (as 'tis written) fall{ing} headlong burst in sunder & died upon ye ground, be{ing} deprived both of communion & life. Such was ye end of Arius. And the Eusebians being greatly ashamed buried their fellow conspirator, but the Church rejoycing, Alexander celebrated ye communion in piety & sound faith with all ye 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 appeared above all humane judgment. ffor the Lord himself judging between the threatnings of the <4r> Eusebians & ye prayer of Alexander condemned ye {Arian} heresy, shewing it unworthy of ye communion of {the Church} & manifesting to all men that altho it be co{untenanced} by ye Emperor & by all mortals yet tis cond{emned by} the Church. – – Certainly many of those who we{re deceived} before, were converted, namely because God {sic} him{self had} condemned the heresy & shewn it to be incommun{icable to} the Church. Wherefore let ye Question cease among {you.} To them wch moved this Question let this be read togeth{er} with what I wrote in briefe to ye Monks concerning th{is} heresy, that they being thence instructed may more & {more} condemn it. But let no copy of these things be transcri{bed} nor transcribe any for your selfe: ffor this I have als{o} enjoyned the Monks: but according to yor candor if a{ny} thing be wanting, in the writings, add it & strei{ght} way return them to us, &c. Thus far Athanasius All {wch} being compared with ye former letter makes it plain that \So then/ ye story of Arius's death was \first/ broached by Athanasius at yt time when ye Arianism {sic} heresy was by countenanced by ye Emperor & by all mortals & by that {i be} & by consequence between \after the compliance {of}/ the Council of Ariminum, & death of Constantius & Athanasius pretended no other author for it then Macarius a dead man & propounded it amongst his ignorant & credulous Monks wth much timorousness & {illeg}charging them to retu{rn} the writing quickly to him wthin letting any copys be transcribed least taken least it should get at length get into such hands as he could not trust. \ffor, saith he, it is not safe that it should come to posterity./ But a while after when ye story was once spread abroad \so that he might tell it wthin being danger of being reputed its author,/ he tells it again in his first Oration {illeg} wthout any such caution. Now the

Now, the reasons wch make me suspect ye truth of this story are these.

1. The \Because ye/ prayer of Macarius is contrary to ye temper & spirit of true Christianity & it is not likely that God would hear a wicked prayer.

2. |Bec.| The story \came to us not from Constantinople as it ought to have done but from {Egypt &}/ was not broached \there as {illeg}/ till 25 24 years after ye death of Arius, or above. |Athanasius & ye Bishops of Egypt \when/ collected {sic}| < insertion from f 3v > {in a Council} at Alexandria five years after ye Council of Tyre \said/ knew {nothing of} it as you may perceive by ye letter wch that Council wrote in {defence of} Athanasius \against \Arius &/ ye Council of Tyre/. Nor did Iulius Bishop of Rome know anything of it {when he w}rote in defense of Athanasius. Nor did the Council of Sar{dica (where} Athanasius & his friends were assembled together o{ut of all the} Empire) know any thing of it, {illeg} as you may perceive {by their} letters. Athanasius long after these times told it as a se{cret & out} of \his/ writings the Ecclesiastical Historians propagated \it/ to posterity.

< text from f 4r resumes >

3. |Bec| It was broached \& spread abroad/ by the grand enemy of Arius \alone/ {illeg} {illeg} stories never look well when told by profest enemies wthout any \pretence of/ proof or other evidence then ye credit of ye reporter. {illeg} For detracting stories never look well when told by \a/ profest enemy {sic}. |Such a person may be an accuser but not a witness & accusations wthout pro{of are by the general rule of all courts} accounted calumnies.|

4. It was beca \Because/ Athanasius broached it (as he confesseth) to blast ye name & religion of his enemies & yt at a nick of time when he was reduced to ye greatest despair.


5. \Because/ he broached it \in a clandestine way in ye wildernesse/ amongst ye ignorant & credulous Monks of his own party: & \was fearful/ least ye writings by wch he broached it should come into other hands wch he could not trust, or remain upon record. He charged his readers to \ffor saith he Tis not safe that they should come to posterity./

6. |Bec.| The story after he had broached it spread but slowly, being not generally known till the ecclesiastical historians \about ninety years after {ye death of Arius}/ set it down in their histories, as ✝[2] Theodoret informs us. Ruffin # < insertion from f 4v > {& Sulpiti}us Severus who wrote their histories above 30 years after {Athanasius} broacht it knew nothing of it, & yet the first of them {had trav}ailed over through ye east. It seems to have made little noise {in the} world before ye Geek {sic} Historians met with it in ye writings {of At}hanasius & put it about.

< text from f 5r resumes >

7. And tho it came originally from Egypt & was not known in the world till above 24 years after ye death of Arius, yet Athanasius \to give credit to it amongst the Egyptian Monks/ told it \then & there/ as if it had been well known at Constantinople from the beginning. For how it could be so publickly known there at first & not spread thence into \Egypt &/ other regions \before Athanasius told it/ I understand not. \8/ Much lesse do I understand how ye people of Constan instead of spreading it should \afterwards/ become unknown in Constantinople it self, till it came thither from \Egypt/ Egypts other parts. For they that first spread it \in that City/ there, to prevent & stifle ye questions where ye boghouse was & how ye story could be unknown there \in that City/ & yet be true; represented \as Historians tell us ye death of Arius/ that all men \indeed/ for a time avoyded ye seat where Arius died, but at length \some/ rich Arian to \extinguish the memory of the story/ bought ye place of ye publick & to extinguish ye memory of ye {illeg} \story/ of story converted the boghouse into a dwelling house. |So yn ye people {of Con}stantinople did not so much as know where ye boghouse was nor durst ye Athanasia{ns}|

8. The Lastly ye main design of ye story is to represent that Arius died miserably without ye pale of ye Church & yet its most certain that he \for that end Athanasius represents as if he died immediately after Constantin{ople}/ /& yet its most certain the {sic} he\ was received into communion before he died. < insertion from f 4v > {8.} Athanasius tells ye story as if Arius died at Constantinople {imme}diately after the {illeg} to Emperor had sent for him {to return} from banishment & seen his faith & yet its certain that {Arius} \went/ afterwards from Constantinople to Tyre & Ierusalem & {Alexa}ndria before he died.

{&} for that end Athanasius represents as if he died \at Constantinople/ immediately {after} he was recalled \thither/ from banishment before ye {illeg} Eusebians {had ti}me enough to receive him into communion \& at sometime after the death of Arius the Council of \Tyre and/ Ierusalem received ye Arians/ & yet it's certain {Arius} lived longer & went {illeg} /afterwards\ from Constantinople \to Tyre & Ierusalem & Alexandria/ to other places {and was} received into communion before he died.

& for that end Athanasius in his letter to Serapion represents as if Arius died at Constantinople immediately after he was recalled thither from banishment before ye Eusebians had time enough to receive him into communion & in his letter to ad Solitariam vitam agentes \to ye Monks/ {after he} had mentioned the ignominious death of Arius he subjoyns {illeg} sometime after ye Eusebians not very long after aft {he pub}lished what they had been endeavouring at Constantinople {illeg} receiving ye Arians into communion (meaning at Ierusalem) & {illeg}ging ye Emperors command & not blushing after ye depositi{on of} Athanasius to write in their letter (that is in {sic} letter of ye {illeg} of Ierusalem to Alexandria) the envy was ceased & yt they {illeg} received ye Arians & boasted ye Emperors command for it not {illeg}ing to add that ye faith of ye Arians was right. Thus does {Atha}nasius in these his two letters that he may make Arius dy{e} wthout ye pale of ye Church place his death \at Constantinople/ before ye Arians were received at Tyre \Ierusalem/. And yet it's certain that Arius went from {Const}antinople to Tyre & Ierusalem & Alexandria before he died & {was} one of those whome ye Council of Ierusalem received into com{mun}ion. < text from f 5r resumes > ffor Constantine ye great recalled him & Euzoius out of \together/ from banishment, \& after he had/ allowed their profession of faith, \even/ wthout ye homoüsians sent them to ye Council of Tyre to be received into communion {illeg} & yt Council \(which Eusebius represents a greater Council than yt of Nice)/ removing to Ierusalem received them there & sent them wth \a/ recommendatory letter to Alexandria to be readmitted {illeg} \to their places./ This story {illeg} is told \not only/ by ye Ecclesiastical & {illeg} \b[3] Historians/ but even \also/ by ye Council it self \it self/ in that letter, & even by Athanasius himself. For he recites that letter & then subjoyns adds yt the Council after ye banishment of Athanasius wrote to Alexandria that Arius & those that they should receive Arius & those yt were with him {illeg} So also ye eastern by the same bishops \that Council/ met again in ye council of Antioch, where they write that they being judges of ye faith of Arius had received him rather then followed him. & even \Tis acknowledged also/ by Athanasius himself For he recites ye aforesaid letter of ye Council of Ieru in his book ye {sic} synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ where he saith that ye Council recites ye letter of ye Council of Ierusalem & then adds that that council [4] after ye banishmt of Athanasius wrote \in this letter/ to them of A{lex}andria that c[5] they should receive Arius & those {that were} with him. And the \memory &/ tradition of his reception \at Tyre/ re{mained in} Egypt till Athanasius by a contrary story e{xtinguished it} as is manifest by <6r> the opposition yt ye story of ye death of Arius met wth at first, some {illeg} disputing that he died in communion till Athanasius commanded them silence. Historians therefore finding yt < insertion from f 5v > {Ari}us was certainly received at Tyre & went thence to Alexandria, have {ende}avoured to mend ye narrative of Athanasius by placing the death {of} Arius not immediately after his return from I banishmt \to Constantinople/ as Atha{nas}ius doth but after his return from Alexandria \thither/: & yet to allow \{as some} do/ {that} Arius was received into communion at Ty Ierusalem & by {con}sequence died wthin ye pale of ye Church is contrary to the {de}signe of ye story; & to tell yt ye Eusebians after they had {re}ceived him at Tyre \Ierusalem/ would have received him at Constantinople {as} if they had not received him before is contrary to common sense not only to ye narrative of Athanasius but also to common sense. Of one excommunication there is but one absolution.

< text from f 6r resumes >

These are the reasons wch incline me to suspect ye story of ye death of Arius: And whilst Athanasius wrote his book de synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ & therein long after ye death of Macarius & therein relates ye reception of Arius at Ierusalem: I suspect also that he knew nothing then of ye story of Arius dying excom out of communion & therefore had it not from Macarius as he pretends but feigned invented it himself.

I know not whether it be worth ye while to relate \mention insist upon/ ye discord yt is between Athanasius & ye Ecclesiastical Historians in relating this story. ffor tho they had it out of \from/ him yet to reconcile it as far as they could wth true history, they tell it otherwise then he did. ffor whereas he relates that as soon as ye Emperor had called Arius from banishment & seen his faith, the Eusebians would have restored him to communion had he not died before the next day: Sozomen Theodoret relates that Arius soon after ye Council of Nice even in ye life time of Alexander of Alexandria that is wthin five months after ye Council of Nice yt after ye went into to Alexandria to be received, but being opposed by \both/ Alexander & his successor Athanasius returned to Constantinople & then died in a boghouse. Socrates & Sozomen & {illeg} Ruffin more truly that Arius after he was recalled from banishment went to Alexand & his faith seen & approved by ye Emperor went to Alexandria to be received, but \{illeg}/ being opposed Athanasius {illeg} opposing him the Eusebians conspired against Athanasius & condemned him at Tyre & {illeg} \received/ Arius \& sent him/ again to Alexandria to be received also there. But, Arius being opposed by ye Clergy of that city returned thence to Constantinople & then died in a boghouse. Sozomen that That ye Emperor having recalled Arius from banishment {illeg} & seen his faith sent him to Tyre \Ierusalem/ to be received b ye Council of Tyre who received him at Ierusalem & sent him \thence/ to Alexandria whence he returned to Constantinople & \it was to there the Eusebians convened a Council to receive him have been/ then died in a Boghouse Ruffin tells ye story as Sozomen does excepting that he mentions not ye \Council of Constantinople & death/ death of Arius. And this last I take to be the truth. For


Quest. {2} 2
Whether the Meletians deserved that ill Character wch Athanasius gave them.

In Dioclesian's Persecution there arose a dispute \contension/ between |Peter| the Bishop of Alexandria & one \Meletius ye first/ of the Bishops Meletus, about receiving the lapsed into communion, the former being for a speedy reception the latter for long penitence as Epiphanius relates, & this ended in a schism amongst themselves \under him wch caused a schism in ye Churches of Egypt/ both parties notwithstanding keeping communion wth ye Churches abroad. When Athanasius succeeded in the Bishopric of Alexandria he was accused of tyrannical behaviour towards ye Meletians so as \in the time of ye Sacrament/ to break ye communion cup of one Ischyras a Meletian Presbyter in Mareote & subvert ye communion table & cause ye Church to be speedily demolished, & some time after to kill Arsenius \a Bishop/ the successor of Meletus \in Hypsalita/. Whereupon ye Meletians accusing Athanasius he was tryed & condemned in ye Council of Tyre & banished by ye Emperor Constantine ye great. And this caused great enmity between the M Athanasius & ye Meletians. Now Athanasius gives them a very ill character & Epiphanius a very good one as if ye first Meletians were confessors & made ye schism\divided from ye Bp of Alexandria/ out of zeale to holinesse. Which character is most probable I leave to be considered. Now the Athanasius therefore \in his second Apology/[6] gives this character of Meletius, \in Hypsalita/ that the he was, by ye Peter ye Bp of Alexandria {illeg} in a common Synod of ye Bishops convicted of many crimes & particularly that he had sacrificed to Idols & for these things deposed & \that he/ thereupon made a {illeg} ye schism & gave ye name of ye Meletians to so yt his followers instead of Christians were called Meletians. But Epiphanius gives a very differe relates ye original of ye schism much otherwise. ffor he saith that calls Meletius a Confessor & {illeg} saith that when he & Peter & other {sic} martyrs & confessors were in prison together, there arose a dispute about ye reception of lapsed persons, Peter \out of mercy/ being for a speedy reception & Meletius & Peleus & many other martyrs & confessors for out of zeal for ye piety being for a competent time of penitence before they were received, |so| that the {sic} sincerity might be appearent \of their penitence {illeg} might first/ appear, & thereupon they divided, the greater part following Meletius. Afterwards Peter suffered martyrdome & Meletius for some time was condemned to ye mines.

Now that wch makes me suspect ye relation <10v> of Athanasius is first because the character of \given by/ ye greatest enemy is always ye most to be suspected & yn because ye Council of Nice dealt favourably with Meletius & his party did not receive Meletius & his party into communion as they would have done had they been excommunicate before, but dealt favourably wth only for putting an end to ye schism, de \without any absolution/ continued {illeg} \them/ Meletius himself, {not only in his {illeg} the Church but also} in their bishopricks & only for putting an end to ye schism confined him \Meletius/ to his city & deprived him of ye power of ordeining, as you may see in ye epistle of this Council to ye Churches of Egypt.[7] ffor if they \Meletius & his party/ continued in communion wthout ever being absolved from excommunication (as it's plain by yt epistle of the council of Nice yt they did) then they were never excommunicate, & if not they were so, then ye story of Athanasius about their \being/ excommunicate is {illeg} for various crimes is a fiction.


Quest. 3
Whether the Council of Tyre & Ierusalem was not an bigger \orthodox authentic/ Council \bigger/ then that of Nice

The friends of Athanasius endeavour all they can, for his credit to diminish this Council & make it a Conventicle of a few Bishops selected by yt his enemies for oppressing him. So Socrates tells us it consisted of but 60 Bishops. And yet by considering earlier records I suspect it was as big or bigger than the Council of Nice. For the designe of this Council being very great it needed great credit & authority to support it. They were to not only to examin the faith \cause/ of Athanasius but also to receive into communion Arius & Euzoius wth their followers in Egypt as men who had been opprest by a fals representation of their faith: & it was an a[8] ancient Canon of ye Church Church, as well as a necessary one, that no man should be received by a less number of Bishops than those by wch he had been deposed ejected. And therefore ye Eusebians were not at liberty to select a Council but ye Emperor sent his letters to of summons into all ye Eastern Empire \requiring ye attendance of ye Bishops/ that ye Council might be full. For this the 80 eastern Bishops in the {sic} letter wch at their return from ye Council of Sardica they wrote at Philippolis, affirm, in these words Concilium … post alterum annum in Tyro propter Athanasij facinora necessariò iterum celebratur. Advenerunt Episcopi de Macedonia & de Pannonia Bithynia & omnibus partibus Orientis, Imperatoris jussione constricti. The eastern Bishops objected against Athanasius that by returning to his Bishopric by for without being restored by as many Bishops as had deposed him he had violated the ancient Canon: but ye friends of Athanasius never retorted ye accusation upon ye Eastern Bishops as if they had done the like in broken ye same Canon in receiving the Arians \at Tyre/. In ye times next after the Council the Athanasians never excepted against it for not being big enough. They never desired that a fuller council should be called in the East to examin the Acts of this: but as if a fuller could not well be called there, or, if called, would not be for their advantage, they appealed to the West. And thereupon arose a quarrel, not between the West & a few Bishops of the East but between the Eastern & western Churches, the whole <14r> East accounting themselves concerned in ye Council. So that when both parties met at ye Council of Sardica, thô the friends of Athanasius came willingly thither & the rest unwillingly yet out of the Eastern Empire he had almost no friends besides ye Egyptians. But let's hear how Eusebius \who/ was in both Councils \& so is a good witnesse,/ describes this & compares it wth the other. For he tells us how ye remoter regions of \Mor/ Pannonia Mæsia Macedonia, Pannonia, Mæsia & Persia sent their Metropolitans thither & then adds [9] Bithyni quoqꝫ et Thraces præsentia sua conventum ornabant nec deerant & Ciliciæ Episcopis clarissimi quiqꝫ. Ex Cappadocia doctri item qui doctrina et eloquentia præstabant in medio concessu enituerunt. Ad hæc Syria omnis, Mesopotamia, Phœnice, Arabia et Palætina, ipsa Ægyptus quoqꝫ et Libya et qui Thebaidem incolunt, omnes in unum congregati magnum illum Dei Chorum implebant. Quos ex omnibus Provincijs innumerabilis hominam multitudo sequebatur. And a little after. Hanc secundam Synodum, omnium quidem ques novimus maximam, Imperator Hierosolymis congregavit, post primam illam quam in urbe Bithyniæ nobilissima collegerat. Sed illa quidem triumphalis erat; hæc in Imperij vicennalibus preces ac vota pro victoria de hostibus parta in urbe victoriæ cognomina persolvens: Haec vero fest tricennalium festivitatem ornavit, cum Imperator. Deo omnium bonorū auctori, Martyrium velut quoddam pacis donarium, in ipso Servatoris nostri monumento dedicaret. Thus far Eusebius, giving the preeminence to ye latter Synod as being called upon ye more holy & solemn occasion to celebrate ye Emperors greatest year.


Now for ye authority of this Council that has indeed been undermined by recconning this among ye Arian Councills {sic}. But

This Council has been reputed Arian & on that account of no authority: but this accusation was never proved & an accusation wthout proof is not to be credited of no credit. The accusation indeed has gained credit among ye followers of Ath{a}nasius for a long time, but this makes it no more than popul{ar} fame & popular fame \wthout \original/ evidence/ thô of five thousand years standing {is} but popular fame not nor can any man take up wth it wthout making himself one of ye giddy mobile. Such fame \indeed/ when {sic} ye original \of it/ is forgotton \may/ make {sic} a strong presumption, but when {sic} we know ye original & can see yt it was spread abroad wthout evidence is \can be/ of no moment. Wise men must look only to ye evidence. Now all ye evidence of that this Council was A{rian} is only this that they received Arius into communion & ba{nish}ed Athanasius. This is all ye ground upon wch the Ar{ian} people came in po fame of their being Arian was spread abroa{d} by ye mobile of Athanasius his {sic} party & this is no just gro{und} at all. ffor did they did not receive Arius without his diso{wning} those things for wch he had been condemned at Nice nor {con}demn Athanasius for his owning the Nicene fa decrees & {I} conceive \tis/ not ye receiving or condemning \the/ men but receiving or condemning their opinions that can make the \any/ Council heretica{l.} So far was this Council from being Arian that ye Bishops thereof in almost all their following Councils declared against Arianism & anathematized ye opinions for wch Arius had been condemned. If you say they dissembled & were Arian in their heart while they were orthodox in their langua{ge I} must ask you how you or any man else know can know {that} \For an accusation wthout knowledge is that wch ye world calls clamour calumny & malice./ Had Athanasius & his party \Moncks/ the gift of searching {sic} \& knowing/ men's he{arts} |Surely| We \{illeg}/ have no other means of knowing men's faith but by profession & way \& outward/ communion & way of worship: & by all the characters \the fathers of/ this Council were orthodox. They \constantly/ profest against Arianism & were in communion wth ye Churches of all ye world & worshipt as other churches \of of that age/ did. For they we{re never} argued of heresy from \reprehended by their enemies upon/ any of these heads grounds heads{. Should} any body of men be church of or age accuse any charge {heresy} upon any body of men of their {sic} own communion, & should men reply that they always were of ye communion of that Chu{rch &} <13r> always profest her faith & used her worship & still continue in ye profession & practise I & should ye accusers grant all this & only reply that notwithstanding \their communion profession & practise/ they were hereticks in their hearts & only dis & should any the Iudges upon this accusation condemn them to death: I think such proceedings ought justly would by all sober men be accounted as \malitious &/ barbarous & mo as any we ever heard o{f.} And yet this is \seems to be/ ye case of ye Council of Tyre where Ath{a}nasius \Council of Tyre/ who {illeg} wthout any proof are accused of heresy by those of their own communion {illeg} contrary to their constant profession & practise, & their authority murdered upon this accusation.

If you say yt Fathers of ye Tyrian Council did afterwards in the times of ye Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia declare for Arianism I answer that you may \/ < insertion from f 12v > ✝ wth better reason say that they declared against Arianism in ye Council of Nice, {illeg} or if you {illeg} please that ye Nicene Council was Arian because the Tyrian was so. For the < text from f 13r resumes > as well say that ye Nicene fathers declared for Arianism in those Councils. For \if the \Fathers of {illeg}/ Councils of Tyre & Seleucia must be recconned {illeg} \all/ of the Councils of Tyre & Nice were much more one For the/ the {illeg} the but 10 years between ye Councils Councils of Nice & Tyre be{ing} \{great} & general {illeg}/ Councils of one & ye same greek Church collected within ye spac{e} of 10 years under one & ye same greek {illeg} Emperor have a far greater affinity with one another than ye the Council of Tyre & Seleucia collected under different Emperors at {ye dis}tance of above 23 years. If some of ye Nice Tyrian {ffathers} were at Seleucia many more of ye Nice were at Tyre{. This} Council being collected so soon after that of Nice ha cons{isted} partly of ye Nicene fathers & partly of their immediate disc{iples} & successors; nor had Constantine ye great done any thing to make ye fathers of ye greek Churches alter their opinions between these two Councils: so yt I see not how \to accuse/ ye Tyrian council can be accused of Arianism wthout saying \is in effect to say/ that the generality of ye Nicene Fathers {sic} were Arians in their hearts {&} therefore we subscribing ye homousios dissembled in their subs{criptions.} For they refused to subscribe against Arius till Constantin{e came} in person into ye Council & overawed them, But be & the{n} they subscribed wth reserves. But between ye times of ye Co{uncil} of Tyre & Seleucia their was time enough \for Constantius/ to work a cha{nge} in the Bishops \& Constantius was ye more likely man to work it: so that/ And if there was any change wrought in {ye} greek Bishops between ye Councils of Nice & Seleu{cia} its \{much more}/ reasonable to beleive that Constantius wrought \it/ after ye C{ouncil} of Tyre then Constantine before.

But what if some of ye Tyrian Bishops, what if many o{f them} were Arians? does this invalidate ye authority of the Council o{f} Tyre? Surely not. The Athanasians sometimes complain as if ye {Eusebi} <13v> ans dissembled in ye Council of Nice, but yet would never allow yt ye authority of ye Council was invalidated thereby. The {Fathe} authority of a Iudge depends not upon his \religion or/ sincerity but upon his incorporation into ye body politick & upon his Commission \to act/: & so ye authority of a Council depends not upon ye \{illeg} secret religion &/ sincerity of {illeg} ye men but upon {illeg} their being an external communion wth ye Church Catholick & hav having a \legal/ Commission to meet & act in Council \For otherwise we could never be certain that any Council is authentic/. And upon this ground ye Council of Tyre was of as great authentick as any greek council ever was or could be since the Apostles days, And this is so certain that even they being in communion wth ye Church catholick & legally convened by ye emperor ye letters of Constantine ye great. And this was {illeg} acknowledged by ye whole even by the

Now {that} this was an authentic Council is manifest also {by the} the consen{t of} all parties in that age. For Athanasius & his party {illeg} \at that time/ /in that ag{e}\ {que}stioned not ye authority of ye Council but only complained as if they had abused their authority by corrupt judgment. They endeavoured by fixing ye imputation of Arian upon ym not to invalidate their authority but to render \bring/ their sincerity into question. And {th}erefore Iulius Bishop of Rome cited ye eastern bishops not to {a}ppear \before him/ in a Council at Rome not to justify \not/ their authority but their integrity. And when they would not appear, |he| absolved Athanasius {in t}hat Council from excommunication & received him into communion acknowledging by that thereby that Athanasius by the sentence of ye Council of Tyre \did really & truly & regularly/ stand excommunicate from ye Church catho western Churches as well as from ye eastern & by & by consequence from ye Church catholick \untill that absolution/. And agreable to this it is yt Athanasius {illeg} to prove that Arius died wthout ye pale of ye Church represents that he died the night before he was to have been received \into communion/ by ye Eusebians. ffor by this story he acknow{le}dges that ye Eusebians being \the Eusebians had full po & just power to/ those who were received into commu{ni}on by ye Eusebians were true in communion wth ye Church ca{th}olic. So then by the consent of Athanasius \Pope Iulius/ & all their {sic} party, ye Eusebian {sic} councils were with so long as before ye rupture between ye eastern & western churches were authentick & their acts valid & binding.

But you

It remains therefore yt we enquire the whether the Council of Tyre dealt sincerely or corruptly in the {sic} cause of Athanasius.


Quest. {sic}
Whether it was {sic} 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. {sic}
Whether Athanasius in ye Council of Tyre produced Arsenius alive or only his {sic} letter of Arsenius to prove yt he was not dead.
Whether it was Arsenius alive or {illeg} only his letter wch Athanasius produced in ye Council of Tyre to prove that he was not dead.

Quest. 5. {sic}
Whether ye story of the dead man's hand & the living Arsenius was not feigned by Athanasius about 25 years after ye time of ye Council of Tyre.

Historians tell us that when Athanasius was accused in ye Council of Tyre of Th the death of Arsenius he represented that Arsenius was alive & when \thereupon/ the accusers to prove that he was dead produced \in the Council of Tyre/ a dead mans hand in a bag, |repre{senting that it} was ye hand of Arsenius {illeg} cut of by Athanasius for magical uses & that| Athanasius confuted them by producing setting ye living Arsenius before ye Council. \& pulling out his two hands from under his cloak to let ye Cou{ncil see yt} n{either of his} hand{s were cut} off: a{t wch ye accusers of} Ath{anasius were} ashame{d & the} being in a {illeg} Council is {illeg} Council {proceeded} no f{urther in} that ac{cusation} there {being some} among {them who} kn{ew Arsenius}/ Now the truth of this story I question partly because I find it was unknown in ye times next after ye Council & partly I because Athanasius & his friends in those {illeg} times related ye story otherwise. ffor about 4 or 5 years after, \(A. C. 440)/ Athanasius called a when he was ready to be expelled his Bishopric ye second time, {ca}lled a Council at Alexandria of 90 Bishops of Egyptian Bishops & he & this Council together \in their name/ wrote a {illeg} \large/ elaborate {let}ter to all ye world in his \own/ defense against the pro \accusations/ proceedings in ye Council of Tyre, & seem to omit nothing that could be thought of in his behalf & yet say not one word of ye dead man's hand nor of Arsenius appearing alive before ye Council of Tyre. About two years after Pope Iulius called \About two years after Athanasius being fled into Italy Pope {I}ulius called a Council of Rome in his behalf & by their same appointment wrote another {illeg} letter against the proceedings of ye eastern Bishop's/ \& seem to omit nothing that could be thought of in his be{half} yet say not one word of the dead mans hand nor of the Arsenius appearing {at} Tyre. Neither he was there {illeg} is there any mention of these t{hings in} the letter wch Pope Iulius about two yeares after wrote \to the eastern Bishops/ from a Counc{il on} behalf of Athanasius against the east who was then amonst {sic} them. N{either are they men}tioned in his two letters larger letters wch/ Athanasius & an hundred Bishops of Egypt {illeg} \together wth/ 150 other Church Bishops convened in ye Council of Sardica wr{iting} {illeg} {sapions} letters to ye same purpose \the one to ye Church of Alexandria, the other {to all the Churches}/. all thes{e letters} {Atha}nasius & his friends say all they can against ye {illeg} Tyre & seem to omit nothing wch they could {find in} f{avour} of Atha{nasius} & yet \they/ have not {illeg} <16r> in man's hand or of Arsenius appearing alive at Tyre. Had this story been true it would have been more to the purpose then all the rest they \also these letters they/ talk much of Arsenius & say he was alive but they do not say that he was seen at Tyre \appeared alive in the Council at Tyre/ tho that one thing had it been true would have sig been more to ye purpose than all the rest together \which they say. They do not so much as say that they or any of the{m} had seen him {alive, or} that they had {any} witnesses of his {being} alive as they m{ight} \(and surely would)/ have affirmed \done/ h{ad} he been seen al{ive} before all ye {world} at Tyre./ But that wch makes me {illeg} most doubt of ye story is that I find it otherwise related {b}y Athanasius \himself/ & his friends in these very letters of ye {C}ouncils {illeg} of Alexandria & Sardica: wch being \For in these letters \wch/ being/ recorded by Athanasius \himself \in his second Apology/ as well as writ by him & his friends/ himself are of unquestionable authority) They |they tell the story as if the a{ccus}ers produced \before ye Council/ not {a} \dead man's/ hand but a dead {body} & Athanasius produced aga{inst them} not the {Arseni}us a{live but his} letter {only & the accusers were so far from being shamed that the Council not}withs{tanding the Letters} proce{eded to con}demn {Athanasius} for th{e murder}.|

For ye Council of Sardica in their letter to ye Church of Alexandria tells us that ye Coucil {sic} of Tyre commanded not the hand but ye dead body of Arsenius to be laid before them. The words of the letter are these. They said & lamented yt Athanasius had committed murder & killed one Arsenius a Meletian Bishop, wch thing they bewailed wth feigned words groans & fals tears {illeg}ἠξίουν του Ζωντος ὡς τεθνηκότος τὸ σωμα ἀποδοθηναι & commanded the BODY of him that lived as if if he had been dead to be brought before them. ✝ < insertion from f 15v > {Bu}t their figments \falacies/ did not lye hid ffor all men knew that ye man {did live} & proved was \by his letters/ proved to be alive \{vizt by his letter.}/. And yet when these {illeg} versatile {men} saw their figments thus confuted (for Arsenius being alive has {shewn} that he was not killed nor dead) they would not thus acquiesce but {after}wards in ye reign {[of} Constantius] added new calumnies \fals accusations/ to ye old ones {that they} might \again/ involve the mann in calumnies. So then < text from f 16r resumes > So then it was not a salted \magical salted/ hand in a bag but the whole \preserved/ body of a dead man wch the accusers of Athanasius laid before ye Council. In cases of murder tis {usu}al to have dead bodies viewed for passing judgment upon them; & this was done in ye Council, tha{t} by ye features & other marks & wounds & testimo{ny} of those who knew Arsenius or had seen his bod{y} before at ye time of ye murder & buried it & d{ug} it up again the Council might be satisfied wheth{er} he was murdered & how. But it seems to indicate sham{e ye} \proceedings of the Council some \Iugler (for I will not say/ sorcerer) has transformed ye whole {body into a magical hand.}/ And tho the Council of Sardica saith that Arsenius was alive & that he being alive had shewed that he w{as} not slain nor dead, yet they mean only that he had shewed this by his letter. For neither they nor the council of Tyre nor that of Alexandria offer to produc{e} him above {nor} say that they or any of them had see{n} him or knew where he was. Neither did they offer to {prove} his being alive by any witnesses, as they might h{ave done} had he been seen publickly at Tyre. Tis his {letter} was produced there & upon wch they grou{nd ye whole ev}idence of his being alive, as Athanasius & \his {friends}/ \And on ye contrary by the same art the letter of Arsenius has been transformed into the living man \Arsenius himself/. ffor that Athanasius \& his friends/ had no other evidence of Arsenius's being alive outside that letter, he & his Bishops in ye Council {of} Alexandr{ia}/ <7r> of Alexandria have plainly acknowledged in these words Athanasius, say they, was accused of killing one Arsenius & breaking the communion cup. But Arsenius lives is alive & {in his letter} desires your communion, {illeg} & expects \not/ other evidence \testimonies/ that he should appear to be alive, but he himself confesses that he lives, writing in his own letters to or fellow Bishop Athanasius whom they assert his murderer. Nor were ye 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 A{tha}nasius. But thanks be to the divine providence {who suffers} nothing unjust to prosper but hath before ye e{yes of all} men produced Arsenius living & openly detecting {their} {ca}lumny & deceipt. ffor he does not shun us as {his murderers} nor hate us as injurious to him (for he suffer{s no evil} from us:) but desires to communicate wth us & {to be of or} number as his Letter shews: And yet notwithstanding this they proceeded against Athanasius & banished him a murderer. ffor it was not ye Emperor Constantine {but} their calumnies {illeg} wch banished him. Here you see tha{t Athanasius and his Bishops are} so far from pretending that Athanasius {sic} appeared alive {at} Tyre that on ye contrary they insist wholy \only/ upon {ye} evidence of his letter & represent that no other {evidence} was to be expected & by consequence had no other{, & mag}nify this evidence so much as if God had thereby {produced} Arsenius alive before ye eyes of all men, & {that} that notwithstanding this Letter the Council of {Tyre} proceeded against Athanasius & banished him {as a} murderer. This they wrote five years after ye Cou{ncil of Tyre} |when things were fresh in their memory & {contrary stories were not yet invented}|

And whilst he was condemned {illeg} by ye {illeg} \and banis{hed}/ for ye murder of Arsenius, this also con {illeg} Arsenius's appearing alive at Tyre. ffor {illeg} how ye council might condemn Athan{asius} {illeg} a man whose dead body lay before t{illeg} a pretended letter: but I cannot under{stand how} {illeg} could {could} condemn him for murder {illeg} stood alive before them in the midst {illeg} <8r> that they did proceed on to ye condemn {sic} Athanasius as a murderer, \& Arsenius/ & by consequence did not {illeg} Arsenius to {be} \were not convicted of his being/ alive is most certain not only by the testimony of Athanasius {&} his friends in the Councils of Alexandria & Sardica but {also} by that of ye Eastern bishops \both/ in their letter to Pope Iulius & ye Council of Antioch & in that wch ye 80 Eastern B {on} their return from Sardica \they/ wrote to all the world.

So then ye story of the hand dead man's hand & ye living {A}rsenius is \seems to be/ a fable invented after ye \those/ times of ye Council {of} Sardica, & I suspect Athanasius to be ye inventor of it {be}cause he tells |it| first of any man in his second Apology [10] {wr}itten in ye wilderness about ye same time that he broached {t}he story of Arius's death. ffor if he knew it to be fals, \& did if it was fals) then/ he was not imposed upon by others but told it to impose {u}pon others & so is the Author.

So then this letter is ye whole grownd of all that {co}nfidence wherewith Athanasius & his friends \so/ consta{ntly} reported that Arsenius was alive. And thô they {tell us} sometimes that that they knew he was alive, or th{at they h}ad shewed that he was not dead, or that God {had produc}ed him openly living & openly detecting ye c{alumny} before ye eyes of all men, yet they mean only {by his} letter. This evidence they magnify thus extra{vagantly} because they had no other. For had they kno{wn where} he was or where any witnesses were wch had {seen} him \they would have known of multitudes had he been seen by all the {world at Tyre}/ they would have sent for him or the {sic} \witnesses/ & {had} them in readiness at their Councils to satisfy all their party & made {illeg} a greater noise about such evidence then about a Letter wch no upright Cout of Iud{icature} would allow for any evidence at all. And yet I {cannot} find that in all their proceedings & endeavours to {over}throw ye Council of Tyre they ever pret{ended to} have \in readinesse/ so much as one living witnesse who had {seen} Arsenius alive \either at/ since the time of either at ye {illeg} Tyre or any where else after ye time of {illeg} For as for Pinnes & Elias they were are not here {illeg} recconed as I shall shew presently \if the fable of/ For as for {Pinnes & Elias} they were not talkt of if the fable of {illeg} be excepted of wch I shal speak presently. {So far are} the Egyptian Bishops from saying that \any of them/ they or {any body} else had seen him \Arsenius/ at Tyre that they insist {only on the} evidence of his letter & say that he expects {no other testimo}nies of his being alive, that is that he conte{nts himself with} having given them that testimony, & therefor{e they are not to} looke for any other. So far are they {from saying} that Arsenius \he/ in person put ye accusers to s{hame, or stopt ye} <9v> proceedings of ye Council upon this accusation, that on {sic} the contrary they say that ye Council proceeded against Athanasius notwithstanding ye evidence of ye letter & banished him as a murderer: which deserves well to be noted. For in this one thing |  passage you have the concurrent testimony of both parties against his being seen alive in ye Council that of Athanasius & his Egyptian Bishops in objecting nothing more then ye letter of Arsenius against the proceedings of the Council; & that of the Eastern Bishops in proceeding on to condemn Athanasius for ye murder. For in doing this they adjudged & declared that Arsenius was dead \murdered/ & by consequence not seen alive in ye Council. Nor did they only adjudge & declare this in the Council but \afterwards/ constantly persisted in it: as you may see in their Letter to Pope Iulius from ye Council of Antioch to Pope Iulius & in that wch in their return from ye Council of Sardica they wrote at Philippolis to all the world. And for my part I can {more} easily believe what both parties affirmed in that age before {newer} stories were invented: then that ye Bishops of all ye {east} should condemn Athanasius for merdering a man who {appeared alive} before them in ye midst of ye Council \& owned himself to be Arsenius/ & be {able to} satisfy ye Emperor Constantine & the eastern nations of {the justness} of this \such a/ sentence. For upon Athanasius's appealing {from the} Council, the Emperor heard the cause over again {illeg} the rest {between Atha}\nasius &/ ye Legates of ye Council & Athanasius he {& the e}ast were satisfied in their proceedings.

{So} then the story of the dead man's hand & the living {Arsenius at} Tyre seems to be a fableinv unknown in those {times and} therefore invented afterwards. And I suspect Atha{nasius} to be ye inventor of it because he tells it first of {any} man in his second Apology written in the Wildernesse {at} the same time that he broached ye story of ye death {illeg} For if he knew it to be fals (as he did if it {were so)} then he was not imposed upon by others, but told {it} upon others & so is ye Author.


Quest. 6

Whether the Letter of Pinnes was not for for proving Arsenius to be alive was not feigned by Athanasius being at ye same time wth ye story of the dead mans hand.

In all ye times of ye Controversy about ye Council of Tyre I cannot find that Athanasius preten or his friends pretended to any w that Arsenius had been seen alive by any living witnesses. The Councils Alexandria Rome & Sardica in their letters do not knew of no such witnesses \in their let in their letters speak not of any/ knew nothing of any such witnesses. But afterwards when Athanasius was condemned by all ye world & \so/ saw that ye letter of Arsenius wthout some further evidence would not any longer support ye beleife yt 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 by one in ye Custody of \with/ one Pinnes & then {at} Tyre. & makes Pinnes himself tell ye story of {his} finding in the following letter {illeg} & tell & {tell the} story of his first finding thus.

Now that Arsenius was hidden by the Meleti{ans that} they might might make his murder more probab{le, his} friends th who were with him testified. ffor in see{king} him we found one of them who wrote to Iohn (anothe{r} actor in the same fals accusation) the following Letter.

I would have you know th

To ye beloved Brother Iohn, Pinnes a Presbyter of {illeg} of ye division \house/ of Ptemengyris {sic} wch is in ye Nome of Anteopolis, wisheth health.

I would have you know that Athanasius sent his Deacon into Thebais to search all places for Arse{nius} Pecusius the Presbyter & Silvanus the brother of {Helias} & Tapenacerameus & Paul ye monck {sic} of {illeg} Hypsæle{s being first} found, confessed that Arsenius was with us. But {learn}ing that, we caused him to be put into a ship & {carried} down with Helias ye monck into ye lower parts {[of Egypt]} And soon after the Deacon wth some others coming {upon us went} into or house but to f{illeg} & found him not by {reason that} we had sent him as was said into ye lower part{s: But} {illeg}rried away me & the Monck Helias the Monck {who had} conveyed him away, they carried away wth them to Alexandria, & brought us before ye Governo{ur} & I could not deny but confessed that he {lived & was not killed.} The same thing also was confessed by {the Monck who had carried him away. Wherefore,} o Father, {I make to} <17v> {you} these things that you may know not accuse Athanasius. For they said that he was alive {illeg} & hidden wth us, & it was made known to all Egypt & cannot any longer concealed {sic}. I Paphnutius a Monck of ye same house have \who have/ written this Epistle salute you much. Farewell.

Now the truth of this Epistle I suspect for these reasons. ffirst because Athanasius & his friends knew nothing of {illeg} this evidence {illeg} in ye Councils of Alexandria Rome & Sardica. So many \living/ witnesses of Arsenius's being alive & ye proof of it by some of ye witnesses before the Governour of Egypt, would have made a much greater noise in ye Council of Tyre & afterward, then ye single Letter of Arsenius & yet I do not fin that Letter, & yet we have shewed out of ye letter of ye Council of Alexandria that Athanasius & his friends at that time insisted only upon ye evidence of |this| letter, representing that no other evidence was to be{illeg} intended only that Arsenius himself had shewed by his letter that he was alive & intended no other evidence of his being alive & complaining yt {illeg} ye Council of Tyre banished Athanasius notwithstanding yt letter. as we have sh{ewed out} of ye letter of ye Council of This was all that Athana{sius &} his friends had then to allege, against ye for he as we {have} shewed out of ye letter of ye Council of Alexandria.

And secondly I suspect ye letter of Pinnes beca{use it represen}ts Arsenius things contrary to what Athanasius {illeg} did in ye \letter of ye/ Council of Alexandria. For here {sic} they tell us {illeg} Arsenius therefore we are told that Arsenius was \at first lay/ hi{d in} upper Egypt till \the Deac/ Athanasius search't for him ye Deac{on of} Athanasius searcht for him & then upon search discover{ed} him & that he then retired into ye lower Egypt & soon after (as Athanasius adds) wrote his {sic} famous Letter. B{ut} in ye letter of ye Councill of Alexandria we are {to}ld that ye Accusers of Athanasius had hid {illeg} that {they m}ight feign Arse were not ashamed to affirm him the {mur}derer of one who was in a remote place divided {from ye} Egyptians by journeys both by sea & land, living {in a} region at that time unknown to all men, & {illeg} 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 b{y the same} man at ye same time & therefore must sta{nd or fall to}gether.


Quest. 7
Whether the story \Letter/ of Arsenius was not feigned by Athanasius before the convening of ye Council of Tyre?

This Letter famous letter, pretended to be writ by Arsenius after he had lain hid for some time {illeg} lain hidden, runs thus.

To Athanasius the blessed Pope, Arsenius bishop of the city {illeg} of ye Hypselita wch was formerly under Meletius, & to ye Presbyters & Deacons much health in ye Lord.

And we loving peace & union wth ye Catholic Church wch you by the grace of God are set over, & desiring to according to to be subject to ye ecclesiastical canon according to ye ancient rule law, do write to you beloved Pope, confessing \promissing/ in ye name of ye Lord that we will not hence forward communicate wth schismaticks nor wth those {illeg} & such as are not in peace wth ye Catholick Church, whether they be Bishops of Presbyters of Deacons; neither will we assemble our selves wth them in any Synod, nor send them letters of peace, nor receive such letters from ym, nor without ye \advice &/ assent {sic} of you ye metropolitan Bp make any decree about bishops, or about any other common ecclesiastical opinion; but \we will/ give place to ye \form received/ Canons form made after ye manner of Ammonianus, Tyrannus, Plusianus & ye other Bishops. Moreover we beseech your \humanity/ there{fore} to write back to us as soon as may be, & also to or fellow collegues in sacred things \fellow Bishops/ concerning us; & shew them that we now stand to ye ancient decrees, being at peace wth ye Cath. Church, & united to or {sic} \fellow/ Bishops of those regions. And we beleive that by your prayers as being powerfull, this peace will be \remain/ firm & indissolvable to ye end, according to the will of God ye Lord of all things through Iesus Christ or Lord. The {illeg} whole Clergy wch is under you we & they that are wth us salute, & so soon as God shall {permit} we will come & see \to/ your humanity. I Arsenius {wish} ye fare well may long fare well, most happy P{ope.}[11]

Now the truth of this letter I suspect for these {reasons.}

|1| Because it has not ye \form &/ humour of a free letter b{ut} looks \starcht & forct/ like a formal recantation \covenant of submission/ drawn up by som{e} lawyer to be imposed upon Arsenius to oblige for ye \or like a recantation imposed on {him}/

2 Because {illeg} if this Epistle were true Ars{enius would} have made good his promise of coming to Athan{asius as soon} as he could, wch he never did, though Athanasius {illeg} in ye letters of ye Councils of \Alexandria, Rome &/ Sardica represented him {illeg} the times of those Councils that is above 12 years af{ter} {illeg} was represented \said/ to write this letter, & that all {this time he} <20r> continued in friendship wth Athanasius. Is it possible yt Arsenius should all this while be alive & be in friendship wth Athanasius & desire to \come to him &/ communicate wth him & {illeg} \avoid/ ye Meletians \who accused him, & stand obliged to by promise to do it as soon as he could/ & yet suffer that |his {illeg}| Athanasius should be accused condemned & banished once & again for killing him, & that ye whole world should be for a long time shaken vehemently shaken & disturbed about this matter, when by manifesting himself he might have prevented these mischiefs? If he knew If he {illeg} could not have come in person yet he might have sent living witnesses to attest his being alive & let ye {illeg} world know where they might see him.

3 Besides In this Letter Arsenius desires that Athanasius would write back to him, & therefore if the Letter be genuine Athanasius knew he {illeg} Athanasius knew [how to write back to him & {illeg} by consequence] where to find him & therefore would have sent for \immediately & {illeg}/ & {illeg} \fetched from brought/ shewed him \openly/ to ye Emperor & all ye world \where he was & {illeg} so would have/ sent for him & fetcht him either by fair means or by foul & shewed him to ye Emperor & all the world. This certainly he would not have omitted to do seeing because for want of him he was in so great straits that he durst not come to ye Council of Cesarea nor came to Tyre before wthout compulsion & then was condemned & banished came wth a {very} great multitude of \uselesse/ dependents whereas Arsenius alone would have sufficed could have been found.

4 But Had this letter \had/ been true & genuine then Athanasius would not afterwards have contradicted it.

4 I suspect this Letter because

4 Had this Letter {b}een geniune Athanasius would not afterwards have contra{dicted} it by ye story of Arsenius at Tyre. ffor in this Letter {Mel}etius promisses renounces ye Meletians & desires ye Communion of Athanasius & promisses fidelity to him & \Athanasius & his friends in/ ye Council of Alexandria represent {sic} that Arsenius continued in that {illeg} friendship to Athanasius. But \their friend th/ till that time ye time of this Council, & by consequence was their friend at ye time of ye Council of Tyre. But Athanasius long after, when he wrote his second Let Apology,[12] told ye story as if Arsenius lay hid at Tyre & when discovered by the friends of Athanasius would not own himself to be Arsenius till being convicted by Paul ye Bishop of ye place he was ashamed to deny it any longer. least And that he d{id} {illeg} to keep his covenant wth ye enemies of Athanasius wth ye {ene}mies of Athanasius least by his being discovered, the fab{le of his} being murdered should be at dissolved.


Now the truth of this letter I suspect for these reasons. first {sic} because it has not the form & humour of a free letter but look{s} like some formal covenant of submission drawn up by a Lawyer to be imposed on Arsenius or by a like a recantation imposed on him by a magistrate. Then because Arsenius had he been of the mind here exprest would have certainly have made good his promise to Athanasius of coming to Athanasius. He would not have suffered ye whole Rom{an} world for many years to continue in war & confusion about his death, but have speedily shewn himself to ye Emperor & to ye world to ye confusion of his all ye enemies of his dear friend Athanasius. Thirdly because were this letter genuine Athanasius must have known how to write back to Arsenius & consequently knowing where he was would have sent & fetcht him by fair means or by foul & shewed him alive to ye Emperor. Lastly because I find {this} Letter directly contradicted by Athanasius himself. ffor he in his Apology pag. 783 tells ye story of ye hand {af}ter this manner Και τί γαρ ἵνα μ{illeg} Ἐγνωσθη κρυπτόμενος ὁ{illeg}ιος &c Arsenius saith he was first found hid in Egypt, after{wards} those of or side found him hidden at Tyre. And wch is strange, when he was found he would not confesse himself to be Arsenius untill in {judgem}ent he was convicted by Paul Bishop of Tyre & from yt {time} being ashamed he denyed himself no more. Now he did that {to keep} ye compact wch he had made with ye Eusebians, lea{st he be}ing found & discovered, the fable \plot/ should be laid open & diss{olved}. {This p}assage I say wherein Arsenius is represented confederate {wth} ye Eusebians till ye Council of Tyre, does absolutely contra{dict this} letter wherein he is made to \renounce that party &/ side wth Athanasius before. {Nor} can it be pretended that Arseni{us} turned {illeg} to & fro, {seing} Athanasius wth his Bishops in the Council of Alexandria {four} or five years after ye Council of Tyre pleaded from this {letter} that Arsenius then desired their communion. So then both {these con}tradictious records cannot be true; or rather they must {both be false} destroying one another. ffor had Arsenius been disco{vered in} such a manner at Tyre, then would not Athanas{ius & his B}ishops a while after in ye Council of Alexandria have {collected} & pleaded from his letter writ before, that he did {at that time} desire their communion. And had the letter been {genuine Atha}nasius would not afterwards have overthrown ye {credit of it by} telling that contrary story of Arsenius at Tyre. {But it seems} his memory failed him.


Quest 8
Whether the Letter of Ischyras was not feigned by Athanasius

When Athanasius was accused of ye above mentioned crimes by Ischyras, \to keep up the {illeg} the representation/ he pretended that Ischyras became penitent & wrote ye following letter.

To the blessed Pope Athanasius, Ischyras wisheth happinesse \health/ in ye Lord.

Seeing upon my coming to you, Lord Bishop, to be received into ye 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 writing that you might know that there was force done to me & yt I was beaten by Isaac & Heraclides & Isaac of Leotis & by their companions. But I calling God to witness upon this do say for my excuse that I am conscious of none of those things done by you of wch 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 self & give you in writing, desiring to be one of your assembly. Farewell in ye Lord. I have given this my hand to you {illeg} Bishop Athanasius in ye prsence of ye Presbyters Ammon of Dicelle, Heraclius of Phasco Boccon of Chenebri, Achillas of Myrsene, Didymus of Taphosiris & Iustus of Bomotheus: & of ye Deacons of Alexandria Paul, Peter & Olympius & these of Mareote Ammonius, Pistus, Demetrius & Gaius.

Now this letter I suspect because it looks as if contrived rather for ye interest of Ischyras \Athanasius/ than yt of Athanasius. \Ischyras,/ It looks \& seems/ more like a formal recantation \or certificate/ then a free letter, It has \& also/ conteins a ridiculous story. ffor who ever went about to procure false \accusers or/ witnesses by forcing & beating them? And were a fals \accuser or/ witnesse so made \procured/, tis not likely that after his discovering ye knavery, he would go on in \accusing or/ witnessing, as Ischyras did to ye end. Could a beating bout make Ischyras so hearty in ye cause? But then I understan the witnessing this letter \as if designed to give credit to ye letter & make it evidence/ looks very odly. Were these witnesses added to give credit \But then/ to this letter with Athanasius? There was no need of that. Were they added to give {illeg} credit to it with others? Then ye designe of ye letter was not <22r> \to satisfy Athanasius but to satisfy others, not/ to make an interest for with Athanasius for Ischyras, but to make an interest with others for Athanasius And Ischyras wrote These witnesses were not designed against Ischyras. Had Ischyras {sic} been penitent & desired ye communion & friendship of Athanasius he would not have signified it to Athanasius by a certificate

< insertion from f 21v >

And further if Ischyras went to Athanasius to be reconciled to him & received into communion as this Letter represents, he went with designe either to confesse his fault or not. If to confesse, how came Athanasius to let him go without taking his confession before witnesses If not not {sic} to confesse how came Athanasius could he hope to be pardoned & received into communion \by Athanasius/? And afterwards if he sent this letter of confession how came Athanasius then to neglect sending for him & making his advantage of ye opportunity. Would Athanasius send up & down ye world to seek Arsenius & not accept of Ischyras when he offered to come in, but content himself wth a bare Letter? These things don't consist.

< text from f 22r resumes >

But that wch looks most odly is ye witnessing of this letter {sic}. Were the For witnesses are never set to letters. They are set to no sorts of writings but such as are designed for evidence in legal proceedings & therefore shew that ye author of this letter designed it for evidence; that is for \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 this Letter wth Athanasius? There was no need of that. Were they added to give credit to it with others? Then ye designe of it was not to make an interest wth Athanasius for Ischyras but to make an interest wth others for Athanasius against Ischyras. Had Ischyras been penitent & desired to be reconciled to Athanasius {illeg} as this letter represents; he would not have sent a certificate to Athanasius against himselfe, but have wrote only an insinuating obliging insinuating letter \in general terms/, & have reserved himself to be useful to Athanasius \as an evidence/ upon condition of a \pardon &/ reconciliation: & no doubt Athanasius would have accepted ye condition wth both hands.

But then again I am

There is another thing wch looks very suspiciously. For many persons are named as witnesses, but their hands were not to ye letter. \{W}ould Ischyras \any man/ call his friends together to be witnesses to ye letter \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 ye Letter 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 increased by considering that the truth of this letter was never proved (that I can find) by the actual testimony of any of the witnesses. The letter was written before the Council of Tyre & by consequence alleged in that Council & in ye Councils of Alexandria Rome & Sardica where Athanasius was present: but no witnesses that I can read of, were ever brought to prove it. <22v> I would ask therefore whether Athanasius & his friends did try to get these letters proved in ye Council of Tyre & on other occasions or not: If they did not it argues a guilty conscience ffor wthout any examination of the businesse they took it for granted that ye witnesses would be against them & therefore did not beleive the reality of their testimony to ye letters. But if they did try & upon examining the witnesses found them against this letter, then is ye letter false by ye testimony concurrent testimony of all those very witnesses cited to prove them true. And this is to me a very great argument of suspicion. For ye case is as if a man should produce a bond, wherein \tis written that/ the party pretended to be bound affirms he signed it before such & such witnesses but whose hands are not to ye bond, & before a Iudge should produce none of ye witnesses but confesse that he never spake wth them or that they are all against him being ye Defendants friends & only plead that they are good witnesses because \tis written in the bond that/ ye Defendant in ye bond \in the bond (pretend to be sent/ (sent {illeg} to ye Plaintiff in a letter) confesses \tis written/ that the \Plaintiff Defendant/ signed it in their presence. So impudent a case as this was scarce ever brought before a civil Magistrate, & I cannot find yt it was allowed in ye ecclesiastical {illeg} Courts of Athanasius's own party, except in ye Council of Alexandria wherein Athanasius himself presided. ffor tho ye Councils of Rome & Sardica in their letters plead much against Ischyras, yet his {illeg} Letter of recantation (wch was ye main thing against him if true) they do not say one word of, & by consequence confided not in it.


Quest 9
Whether the Recantation of Valens & Vrsatius was not feigned by the friends of Athanasius.

When Athanasius being banished first by Constantine ye great & then by his son Constantius appealed from ye Council of Tyre to ye Pope, & the Eastern Bishops were thereupon summoned first to ye Council of Rome & then to ye Council of Sardica to appear & plead their cause but would not subject themselves to the jurisdiction of authority of ye Pope & jurisdiction of ye western Bishops: Constans Emperor of ye West wrote this letter by ye impulse of ye Western Bishops \wrote this letter/ to his brother Constantius, threatning to re that if he would not restore restore Athanasius & animadvert upon his adversaries he would come himself & restore him by force. Whereupon {illeg} Constantius \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 invited Athanasius back by courteous letters, & \a while after/ Vrsatius & Valens two Bishops of Pannonia who had consented to \bin principal actors in/ ye condemnation of Athanasius, wrote to him {illeg} for allaying these heats, wrote to him the following {illeg} {illeg} \were said to have written to him & the Bishop of Rome \voluntarily/ two letters one from Aquileia to Athanasius the ye other at Rome to ye Pope wherin they declare yt they are not {illeg} desire his communion, the other at Rome to ye Pope as follows./

Having a

To or Lord & Brother Athanasius the Bishop, Vrsatius & Valens Bishops.

Having an opportunity by our brother & fellow Presbyter Musæus who is going to your humanity, dear brother, we salute you \much/ by him from Aquileia, & wish that you may read or epistle in health: ffor you will of wch thing \whereof/ you will make us certain, if you please to write back to us ffor we desire you should know that we have peace wth you & ecclesiastical communion, an manifestation |  assurance of wch is this or salutation \you may know by this/ by these or letters. The divine providence preserve you {illeg} deare Brother.

On this occasion To Pope {illeg}

To Iulius the Bishop of Rome To or Lord the blessed Pope Iulius, Valens & Vrsatius wisheth health.


Since it is manifest that we formerly insinuated by or letters many heinous things concerning Athanasius, & being convened by the letters of your holiness, could not give an account of what we had signified: we confesse to yor Holinesse, \in the presence of/ all the Presbyters or brethren, being present, that all things wch heretofore came to or ears concerning Athanasius are false & feigned & of no force. And therefore we most <24r> willingly embrace ye communion of ye said Athanasius especially since yor Holinesse according to yor innate goodnesse, hath been pleased to pardon or error. We professe also that if at any time ye Oriental Bishops or \even/ Eusebius himself wth an evil mind shall \shal wth an evil mind wickedly/ call us to into judgment concerning this thing, \we/ {illeg} will not go thither without your approbation & c \consent. And the/ heretick Arius # < insertion from f 23v > # And we declare \the heretic/ Arius a heretick wth \&/ his followers who say There was a time wn ye Son was not, & \affirm that/ the Son is of nothing, & deny that he was before all ages, as by or former confession wch we made at Millain so now & always we anathematize.

This \last/ Epistle is said by Hilary to have been written {illeg} upon occasion of ye B \a Council/ convening at Sirmium against Photinus two years after the Council of Millain wherein & by consequence four years after ye Council of Sardica. ffor Socrates \Petavius/ & Valesius \according to/ place \agree wth Socrates in placing this/ Council of Sirmium {sic} {illeg} in ye year {illeg} 351, \according/ & Liberius in his Epistle to Constantius written after George was made Bishop of Alexandria & by consequence A.C. 356 {sic} or 357 reccons eight years from ye Council of Millain to ye writing of yt Epistle, & therefore ye Council of Millain was celebrated A.C. 348 {sic} or \349 {sic}/ ye year before.

Now this confession \second Epistle/ of Vrsatius & Valens I suspect for many reasons.

1. It is \a confession/ attested by nameles witnesses & was never proved.

2. The {sic} crime is too great \& shamefull/ for Bishops to acknowledge voluntarily as Valens & Vrsatius are said \here represented/ to have done.

3. {illeg} Eusebius who is mentioned in ye Confession \Epistle/ was dead before & if for Eusebius you write Athanasius as Hilary does \with Hilary & Sozomen to avoyd this objection you write Athanasius for Eusebius/, ye sense seems as {illeg} as hard \is hard. For it \Athanasius will be accused of an evil mind wch is/ contrary to ye designe of ye {illeg}/ Confession to accuse Athanasius of an evil mind /Epistle\.

4. The confession yt confession \saying/ that Valens & Vrsatius being required to prove ye accusation things charged agt Ath. could not do it, is not consistent wth ye proceedings in ye Council of Sardica. For there Valens Vrsatius & ye other three Bishops \five of the six Bishops then living/ who had been sent wth them {illeg} from ye Council of Tyre to Mareote to examin ye businesse of Ischyras, were propounded (two of wch five were Valens & Vrsatius) propounded \to ye Western Bishops/ that {illeg} an equal number of both parties should be sent again to Mareote to examin all things as \to examin things anew/ & if ye accusation \crime/ did not appear true , they five would be excommunicated, but if it did the like number of ye western Bishops who created ye disturbance should be excomunicated by ye eastern. But ye Western Bishops would not accept of equal terms nothing would satisfy but a submission of The {sic} Eastern Bishops \must submit/ to ye authority of ye Pope & jurisdiction of ye western Bps or go for criminals.

5. Pope Liberius a in his Letters to Constantius in behalf of Athanasius makes no mention of this confession \Epistle or confession/ of Vrsatius & Valens; \in this Epistle/ as he would surely have done had it been \newly/ made to his predecessor.

6. The \great/ Council of Ariminum b[14] in their Letter to Constantius accused Athanas Vrsatius & Valens of {illeg} ye first Confession {illeg} made at Millan whereas ye second was \would have been/ more material had it been true \saying that after they had been excommunicated upon suspicion of Arianism, they begged pardon & were absolved at Mi ye Council of Millan before {illeg} \the legates of the Pope/. But of the second Confession & absolution & absolution they make no mention, tho that would have been more material had it been true/.

7. Vrsatius & Valens were never excommunicated but once, yt is to say in ye Council of Sardica; & one ex excommunication admits but of one absolution. I

If you place ye Council of Millan before ye Council of Sardica the first absolution \confession & absolution/ will be before the western Bishops excommunicated any of ye Eastern for Arianism, & ye 2d before Athanasius went from Rome into ye East both wch are plainly absurd. ffor ye second confession was \afterwards/ sent to Athanasius out of ye west by Paulinus Bp of Treves. But if you place ye Council of Millan after And besides this \further/ ye Council of Sardica would have been in their letters whereby they declare < text from f 24r resumes > Valens & Vrsatius excommunicate \for Arianism/, would have taken notice of their being be former excommunication, recantation & absolution {illeg} for ye same thing \had there been any such thing/. But if you place it ye Council of Millan after ye Council of Sardica \as you ought to do/ then Valens & Vrsatius after will recant & be absoved {sic} twice for one from one excommunication: & wch increases ye absurdity, the Bp of Rome alone will absolve them from what {illeg} 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 there is no place for this second recantation & therefore I suspect it was that after Vrsatius Constantius, to avoyd a civil war, recalled Athanasius, Vsatius {sic} & Valens went first to Rome & thence to ye Council of Millain to m make their peace& yt please satisfy the Pope & Council about their faith & make their peace, & that some time after somebody feigned \afterwards somebody took occasion from thence to feign/ a second confession as if they had made it agane to Rome & those made at Rome & Millan had been different confessions & ye former made two years after the latter.

Now these letters I suspect first because Athanasius speaking of them both, saith[15] that copies of them were sent to him from Paulinus Bishop of Treves in Gallia: whereas copies of ye first had it been genuine would \on the contrary have/ have gone gone from Athanasius into ye west.

Secondly because Valens & Vrsatius are said to make this confession freely wthin ye least compulsion & yet the crime is too great for Bishops to confesse by ye greatest compulsion. Would two Bishops freely declare themselves rogues before all their Clergy & ye \{illeg}/ proclaim their rg roguery to all ye world.

Thirdly because this recantation is attested by namelesse witnesses & was never proved. For ye enemies of Vrsatius & Valens \met/ in ye Council of Ariminum charged them with it \in a letter to Constantius/ but urged no other proof against them besides their handwriting. The urging this proof shews \both/ yt Valens & Vrsatius did not own it & denyed it, & \the fact & also/ that their \enemies/ had no better proof against them then ye unwitnessed copy of their {illeg} \recantation./



Whether Vrsatius {&} Valens made any other confession besides that in ye Council of Millain.

The bishops of ye Council of Ariminum mention in a letter to Constantius mention how Vrsatius & Valens being suspected of Arianism & excommunicated, asked pardon & were absolved by ye council of Millain where ye Legates of ye Bp of Rome were present. Hilary in his fragments tells us that two years after this council {illeg} Valens {illeg} {illeg} being in Rome wrote ye following Epistle to ye Pope wrote wth his own hand a confession that all ye accusations of Athanasius were feigned & false, & in the end thereof anathematizes Arianism as he had done before at Millain & yt Vrsatius this confession Vrsatius \was/ subscribed by Vrsatius. Now its possible that Valens & Vrsatius might first apply themselves \first/ to ye Pope & yn to ye Council of Millain & thence \The confession you may see at large in Hilary & other/

Now this second confession I suspect for several reasons. \1// Tis attested by namelesse witnesses & was never proved. \2// {illeg} The crime is to great for Bishops to acknowledge voluntarily as Vrsatius & Valens are said to have done. \3// The Council of Ariminum accuses Valens Vrsatius & Valens of only the first confession, whereas ye second {illeg} makes more against them had it been true. \6// They were excommunicated but once upon suspicion of Arianism that is to say by ye Council of Sardica & one excommunication admits but of one absolution. If you place ye Council of Millain before ye Council of Sardica then the first absolution will be before ye western Bps began to excommunicated any of ye Eastern for arianism & ye second before Athanasius went from Rome to his bishopric, wch cannot be because it was afterwards sent him out of ye West by Paulinus Bp of Treves. If you place that \Council/ after {sic} ye Council of Sardica \were absolved/ then Valens & Vrsatius \will/ be twice absolved from one excommuncation: |for their second confession by re{illeg} the {illeg}|

\4// In ye \second/ confession as tis recorded by Athanasius, Eusebius \who was dead/ is mentioned as then living. In Therefore Hilary & {illeg} for Eusebius write Athanasius {illeg} but wthout any good sense but contrary to ye sense of ye confession.

\5// In ye this 2d Confession they are made to say that they would not being required to prove ye charge against Athanasius they would not \never/ do it And yet ye Eastern Bps at ye Council of Sardica did {illeg}er ye western to send five Bps to Mareote {illeg} whereof Valens & Vrsatius should be two, provided the western would send other five & if these ten did not find all things ye accusation of Ischyras to be true they {illeg} the Eastern Bps would submit to excommunication {illeg} of themselves & ye absolution of Athanasius; but equal terms would not satisfy the western Bps. The eastern must submit to their {sic} jurisdiction or go for criminals.


Quest. 10
Whether Athanasius was accused of adultery before the Council of Tyre.

The ecclesiastical historians tell us that Athan a woman wa Philostorgius[16] \tells us/ that Athenasius being impelled by ye Emperors threatning, came to Tyre, he refused to would not submit to be jud stand in judgment, but \hired &/ sent in a big bellied woman \wch he had hired/ to accuse Eusebius of adultery, hoping that by ye tumult & wch would probably be raised, he might escape being tried. But when Eusebius asked her if she {sic} knew ye man & whether he was in ye {illeg} amongst ye Bishops then present, she answered that she was was {sic} not so senselesse as to accuse such men of base lust, & by those words discovered the fraud. This story the other Historians Sozomen & Theodoret[17] tell ye contrary invert as if ye whore was brought \hired by the Eusebians/ to accuse Athanasius & the fraud detected by one of Athanasius's friends to ye confusion of his accusers. But this last Had this last story been true it would have been a more material objection against ye proceedings of ye Council of Tyre then But this last story was unknown to Athanasius & his friends in ye times next after ye Council of Tyre. For in ye letters of ye Councils of Alexandria Rome & Sardica they mention it not though they omit nothing wch made against that Council & this story had it been true would have been \made/ more material against it then anything else they say. Nor does Athanasius mention it in all his works. Whence I suspect his friends sometime after ye writing of his Apologies, inverted ye story of Ischyras \to obviate the objection taken from this/ the accusation


Whether Athanasius did not {illeg} \misrepresent/ impose upon ye western Bishops &

Quaest. 11
Whether Athanasius hath \did/ not misrepresent {sic} the story of \accusation of his breaking/ the communion cup of \charged upon him by/ Ischyras & subverting the communion Table and demolishing the Church.

Whether Athanasius did \fairly \sincerely// acquit himself of ye crime of breaking ye communion cup \& whether he did not feign the letter/ of Ischyras.

When Athanasius succeeded in ye Bishopric of Alexandria he was accused of tyrannical behaviour towards ye Meletians so as to kill one Arsenius with his own hands to break ye communion cup of one Ischyras a Meletian Presbyter in Mareote then performing sacred rites & to subvert the Altar & cause the Church to be demolished. This was ye true accusation as I find by ye letter of ye 80 eastern Bishops at Sardica recorded in Hilaries fragments.

On the other hand Athanasius & his party represented that Ischyras was no Priest, the place no Church, the day not the Lords day; that Athanasius went not thither himself but only sent Macarius who found Ischyras not celebrating ye sacrament but sick in bed & charged him not to proceed in those things, & that Ischyras so soon as well fled to ye Meletians & Eusebians who thereupon composed the accusation. But were this representation genuine there could have been no colour for framing an accusation. For cunning men never venture to frame false accusations wthin some considerable colour of circumstances handsomly laid together. The mystery therefore I suspect to be this.

W I find by a letter of Constantine ye great to Athanasius that Athanasius & Macarius were both of them accused: & by ye letter wch ye 80 \Eastern/ Bishops of ye Council of wrote at Phippolis, on the compared wth some passages cited by Pope Iulius out of ye Acts of ye Council of Tyre, that when indeed Macarius was sent by Athanasius he found Ischyras sick in bed but that Athanasius was accused by Ischyras himself for coming \also/ himself when Ischyras was administring the Eucharist & for breaking the communion cup & overturing the altar wth his own hands. So then it seems (according to ye accusation) <27r> Macarius was sent first to forwarn Ischyras of executing the office of a Presbyter & then afterwards when he would not desist Athanasius coming at a time proper to find him in ye act, overthrew ye sacred things & caused the place to be demolished, Macarius perhaps assisting him. Now the accusation lying only against this last act Athanasius to acquit himself confounds this {sic} time wth the former & undertakes to prove (not before ye Council of Tyre but where ye accusation was understood, but afterwards amongst ye \credulous/ western Bishops & others of his own party) that Macarius went alone wthin Athanasius & found Ischyras sick in bed in a place wch was not ye a Church, on a day wch was not ye Lords day, & only reproved him: & therefore & therefore \& thence concludes that/ ye accusation that Athanasius found him on the Lords day in a Church administring ye Eucharist & brake ye Altar subverted ye sacred things was a figment. When the Council of Tyre sent six of their Bishops to examin Witnesses about this matter at Mareote {sic}; some witnesses relate {illeg} declared how Macarius found Ischyras sick in bed, others how Athanasius \afterward/ found him administring the Eucharist. \The Acts of the Council of Tyre being left at Rome by the Delegates of the Eastern Churches who fled thence in hast for their safty {illeg} some witnesses de declared that Macarius found Ischyras sick in bed/ Athanasius shews ye Bishop of Rome the {illeg} in these Acts of ye Council of Tyre what \the/ former witnesses affirmed & but conceales ye evidence of those |others| letter \{illeg} declared how Athanasius at another time found him in the Church administring ye Euch/ (for ye Acts were writ in Greek a language not understood by ye Latines) & so perswades {sic} ye Bp of Rome \& the Latines/ that since the Council since Ischyras could not be \found in the Church/ administring ye sacrament Eucharist \on the Lords day/ since by it appeared by the very Acts of ye Council that he was found sick in bed {sic}. Now if \Athanasius shuffled in making/ this answer wa Defense was a jug shuffling one. then its plain that he was gravelled & knew not how to make a just defense wanted a just defense. Which is enough to decide the Question.


Iulius Bp of Rome in his letter for Ath. insists upon f evidence of the letter but not tells how Athanasius produced ye true authentic handwriting of Ischyras confessing that he was suborned \wheby {sic} he confesses the subornation./ /confessing yt he was suborned\ He does not say say {sic} that Athanasius had proved it to be written by Ischyras but only that it was his \by witnesses that Ischyras wrote yt \that confession/ but lays the \whole/ stress of the evidence upon the/ handwriting of Ischyras


Quest. 12
Whether Athanasius was not made Bishop of Alexandria by sedition & violence against the canons of that Church.

Sozomen[18] tells us that in ye Council of Tyre Athanasius was accused by all in common that he acquired the Bishoprick by ye perjury certain {sic} bishops, when all ye Bishops had agreed before yt no man should be ordained except before they had ended the differences wch were between them brawls wch were between them. ffor Eusebius[19] tells us \writes/ that after \when/ the Council of Nice \was ended/ there burned an implacable fury of contention among ye Egyptians. And Socrates tells us[20] (out of ye letters of ye bishops then written at that time) that it \this contention/ was about ye \Nicene/ decree of ye word homousios, some those who opposed it disliked it thinking that ye opinion of Sabellius & Montanus was introduced by these \those/ who allowed it & therefore calling them impious, as if they took away ye existence of ye Son of God; & th on ye contrary those who allowed this word thinking yt ye worship of many Gods was introduced by their adversaries & therefore shunning them as if they introduced ye superstition of ye Gentiles. B Vpon Vpon ye death of Alexander {illeg} therefore, there d[21] being gathered out of Thebais & all Egypt 44 Bishops, as Sozomen writes \as ye d[22] accusers of Athanasius affirmed/, they agreed under oath that no man should be ordained before they had ended these brawls wch were between th these brawls & then they should elect a new bishop by common consent: but some of these bishops {illeg} violating their oath ordained Athanasius privately wthout the consent of ye rest. {illeg} ffor e[23] Athanasius wth a part of ye people go rushing one evening into ye Church called Dionysius's, & finding there certain Bishops shut ye doors & continued there till \caused/ ye Bishops after much reluctancy \to/ ordain {sic} him. Whereupon ye rest of ye Bishops anathematized Athanasius, but he sending letters to ye Emperor in ye name of ye City \to ye Emperor/ procured a confirmation of ye act & his ordination & thereby silenced his adversaries. This was ye accusation as tis represented by Sozomen & Philostorgius.[24] And that there was some truth in it is confest by Athanasius & his Bishops in ye concil of Alexandria collected about 15 years after this ordination of Athanasius. F For whereas ye The For whereas ye {illeg} Their words are these. They [\the/ accusers of Athanasius say that after ye death of Alexander[25] <28v> the Bishop, when som but some few some few made mention of Athanasius, six or seven Bishops ordained him secretly & in a hidden place. These things they wrote to ye Emperor being not ashamed to write any lye kind of lye. But we & ye whole City & Province attest that are witnesses that all ye multitude & all ye people of the Catholick church [that is all whom they would acknowledge to be catholick] being assembled as with one soul & body, cried out wth great acclamations desiring that Athanasius might be Bishop of ye Church. This they intreated of Christ by publick votes & this they adjured us to do for many days & nights, neither departing from ye Church themselves nor suffering us to depart. Thus you see while Athanasius \this Council/ would seem to correct the accusation in point of circumstances, they confess the sedition & violence of the people & yt ye \imprisoned/ Bishops \in a Church/ resisted them, many days & nights together before they would ordain him, & that all the people by whose violence this was done were no more in number then one of ye little churches built before ye reign of Constantine the great for ye 12 parishes of Alexandria was able to hold.

Nor indeed was Athanasius capable of being ordained. ffor he was but a Deacon, & the Canon ordained \constituted/ by Mark the Evangelist & constantly observed till that time, was that there should be 12 Presbyters of that Church & that out of them ye Bishop should be always elected.

And besides, he was scarce of age for such a dignity. ffor he was then but a youth scarce 25 years old. Whence the c[26] Meletians used to cry: O wickedness Is He {sic} a Bishop? or he a boy?

To palliate these things ye Athanasians \have/ feigned as if Alexander upon his death bed recommended 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 Ale the Council of Alexandria \who omit nothing that made for Athanasius mention it not & therefore/ knew nothing of it. While By comparing all circumstances its more to be suspected that Athanasius in \the/ controversy between ye Clergy of Alexander, inflamed differences, thereby to throw out part of ye Clergy & make room for himself & his friends: & when he had gotten \thus/ gotten to be Deacon, the reputation & interest he had got with his friends by that controversy, served him to invade the Bishopric. ffor when ye people {illeg} of his party, shutting up themselves wth certain of ye Bishops in a Church, importuned those Bishops for many days together to ordain him, I do not hear that those B he sided wth those Bishops against ye people.


Quest. 13
Whether Athanasius was not justly deposed by ye Council of Tyre.

The arguments of {illeg} for ye justnesse of ye sentence are very great.

1. The Council of Tyre was a \very/ full Consil Council of ye East \one. So that if some/ Bps would have been partial there were others enough numerous enough to reduce em to modesty. \And yet I cannot find but that all who sat in Counsil as Iudges subscribed to ye sentence/ And if it be objected that \ye Council was not free because/ ye Emperor was present, there by his Deputy wth a band of sold guards of soldiers: the objection lies stronger against ye Council of Nice where ye Emperor was present in person & yt not only to keep peace & yt \& that with a designe/ to influence ye decision of ye Council, whereas at Tyre his Deputy was there only to see peace kept {sic}. ffor ye \The/ strange heats at Nice between ye Bishops making ye Emperor think it necessary \{illeg} admonished ye Emperor/ \for ye Emperor/ to take prevent the like at Tyre, & if he had not done so there could have been nothing but confusion, Symbol (breath-mark and small obelus) in text |Athanasius bringing a great multitude out of Egypt to create disturbance & behaving himself very tu{rbu}lently in his try{all a[27]} as ye {Coun}cil of Tyre {in their} \circulatory/ letters comp{lained.}|

{sic}. When Athanasius saw he was in danger of being \the Legates returned from Tyre & Athanasius was fully heard &/ condemned he fled from Tyre & appealed to ye Emperor. |Constantine|. Whereat ye Emperor by an angry letter summoned ye Council to come & give an account of their proceedings. But they sent only six Legates. & And then ye Emperor \{illeg}/ heard all ye cause over again between \Athanasius &/ ye Legates, & Athanasius approved the proceedings of ye Council & banished Athanasius. Tis true that Athanasius represents yt ye Emperor Legates feigned a new crime calumny against him whereby ye Emperor being incensed banished him in a passion wthin hearing ye case {sic} of Arsenius & Ischyras: but the 80 Eastern Bishops in ye letter wch {illeg} in their return from {illeg} \Sardica/ they wrote at Philippopolis say ye contrary. Their words are For relating how ye six Bishops returning from \who were sent to/ Mareote \returned/ to Tyre & confirmed ye truth of ye accusations, they add: Vnde in præsentem Athanasium dignam pro criminibus sententiam [patres] dicunt. Propter quod Tyro fugiens Imperatorem appellat. Audit etiam Imperator; quiqꝫ interrogatione habita dignam omnia ejus flagitia recognoscens, sua illum sententia in exilium deportavit.

{sic} Its objected that at \ye examination of things at witnesses at/ Mareote there was present but one party. The accuser Ischyras \say they/ was there, but ye Defe neither of ye Defendants Athanasius & Ischyras were there \Macarius were both absent, nor were any of {ye Pres}byters {of Atha}nasius a{llowed to} be pre{sent at the} examin{ations thô} they {desired it.}/ Well, but if ye accusers brought several witnesses to Tyre as no doubt they did, & after both parties had been heard face to face ye Council had a mind to inform themselves further what \give themselves the outmost satisfaction/ {illeg}by sending to ye place after such persons as they thought fit \not to act as Iudas but to be witnesses of such depositions as they should there take/ {illeg} Ischyras with them to call summon his witnesses {illeg} to take Depositions some to cite witnesses others to take <29v> {illeg} depositions but none to act as judges or accusers & if the evidence Delegates at their return acted ye part of witnesses before the Council & ye Council {illeg} ye cause between Athanasius take \as Iudges heard/ the evidence of these witnesses {but \between/ Athanasius & Macarius} between Athanasius & Ischyras, {illeg} is the Council to be blamed for this? For that this was ye \true/ case is manifest by ye letter of ye Council of Alexandria wherin Athanasius \& ye Egyptian Bps/ affirms that say that[28] ye Delegates of ye Council \of Tyre/ were not ashamed of Iudges to become witnesses. Had Athanasius represented to desired that witnesses might be examined for him as well as against him & for that end that somebody might go on his behalf to cite ye witnesses wch were for him, {illeg} as well as Ischyras went to cite ye witnesses against him, this would have been a the Council could not in justice have denyed such a request. But he never pretended \not/ to \have/ any witnesses: for he & his friends never complained that their witnesses were not examined. All their complaint was that they were not admitted to except against the witnesses of Ischyras, {illeg} as being other \some of them/ /either\ heathens or {sic} Catechumeni others it may be {illeg} it may be \or/ Arians, or Meletians \or Colluthians/ or \persons suborned or/ any thing else than ye friends of Athanasius. ffor \Athanasius &/ his friends exclaim against all the the Delegates for examining all those sorts of people, as if heathens were not as good witnesses in matters of fact as any other sorts of body else. So then whilst Athanasius affirmed {illeg} there was no Church demolished no communion altar over-turned, no cup broken, ye day not Sunday, ye place no Church, |&| he \himself/ not there: Ischyras sick in bed Ischyras poo he could produce no witnesses to prove what he affirmed but Ischyras produced many upon ye place to prove ye contrary. It's true that ye \The/ Presbyters of Athanasius sent their own \to ye Council of Tyre in a letter/ by some of their members all ye e{vi}dence they had, & that was only their own testimony. T{his} evidence (if men can give evidence in their own cause) {ye} Council of Tyre had before them & knew how to com{pare} it with other evidence & what stresse to lay upon it \& suerely {sic} knew what stresse to lay upon {it}/. So {yt} I see not what was wanting to enable them to pass judge righteously.

4 ffive Years after was ye Council of Alexandria of 80 Bps called by Athanasius against ye Council of Tyre; but whilst they examined not ye cause between Athanasius & Isch his accusers nor sent to Mareote to examin witnesses but took \but relied on the \feigned/ letters of Arsenius & Ischyras & such other/ reports of wch Athanasius & his Presbyters being {sic} most of them his creatures, & whilst {illeg} Athanasius presi himself (the party condemned \a man condemned/ /the party accused & condemned)\) presided in ye Council & most probably dir penned their Letter: what they did can amount to nothing <30r> more then prejudice. Neither did the Councils of Rome & Alexandria Sardica examin ye b cause between Athanasius & his accusers or send to Mareote to inform themselves, but relied upon the judgment proceedings \credit/ of ye Council of Alexandria & testimony of the letter & ye testimony \credit/ of ye p Athanasius & his Presbyters & of & that of ye Presbyters of Athanasius, & were \also/ influenced by ambition, their designe being to make ye Pope universal Bishop & under him to exercise jurisdiction over the eastern Churches. {illeg} For {illeg} ye Pope summoned them to ye Council of Rome to answer ye accusation of Athanasius & w to be judged & when they {illeg} checkt him for his ambition & refused to submit to \come &/ subject themselves the Pope Pope Council \of Rome/ absolved Athanasius wthout any judicial processe, as if the eastern Bishops by not coming to plead had acknowledged themselves guilty. Then \Afterwards/ ye Council of Sardica proceeded upon ye same ground, excommunicating ye Chief of ye eastern Bishops because they would not come & defend themselves to submit themselves, & making a decree yt appeals might be made from all ye world to ye Pope. This intermixing of ye {illeg} of {illeg} concern for ye universal Bishoprick puts a prejudice upon ye ye cause of Atha proceedings for Athanasius & makes them irregular & void. And if the prejudice is increased by ye case of Marcellus who was deposed for heresy by ye eastern Bps for heresy & absolved by ye \wth Athanasius/ in ye Council & justified by ye Councils of Rome & Alexandria & Sardica & yet afterwards acknowledged by all ye world to be guilty of the heresy for wch he was deposed. Now if the Councils of Alexandria Rome & Sardica neither acted judicially nor wthout prejudice then has there been nothing done to dissove {sic} ye \judgment of the/ Council of Tyre & therefore that Council is still in force.

5. The prejudice \proceedings/ against the proceedings of Atha the friends of Athanasius are further {illeg} \cleared/ by a proposal made by at ye east Council of Sardica, which ye 80 eastern Bishops in this letter wch they written at Philippopolis, thus relate. by five of ye six Bishops wch were sent from Tyre to Mareote, namely that an equal number of Bishops should be sent to Mareote by both parties \to ye places where Athanasius \had/ committed his crimes/ to examin things anew & if ye crimes of Athanasius did not appear, those five should report wch those five made to ye Council of Tyre appeared to be false they would stand excommunicated wthin complaining to any body, but if those \it things/ were found true, then five of those who abetted {illeg} Athanasius should be excommunicated & complain to no body. But this \equal/ condition ye friends of Athanasius would durst not accept of.

6. After About six years after ye \{illeg}/Council of Sardica <31r> [Constantius \now/ being Emperor of both East & West Magnentus Ca{illeg} called a Councils {sic} \were {sic} called: one/ at Millain of 300 Bishops & {illeg} \{illeg}/ \who all readily/ subscribed ye condemnation of Athanasius except Eusebius Vercelleus Lucifer Calaritanus Lucifer \& Rodanus/ a[29] Eusebius profered to subscribe provided {illeg} the Nicene faith were first confirmed \& so did b[30] Hilary & Rodanus/ c[31] Dionysius pr Mediolanensis subscribed but Eusebius perswaded him that ye Nicene faith was struck at, & got his name blotted out again. Hilary {illeg} d[32] Lucifer also str struck at ye Nicene faith for re represented \& Paulinus of Treves/ forbore subscribing for fear of ye Nicene faith. These six were therefore banished. Liberius bishop of Rome at first forbor refused to subscribe & so did Hosius but afterwards they complied] A.C. 353 Constantius now being Emperor of both East & West called a Council at Arles in Gallia to have ye deposition \& for that end sent a courteous letter to At/ condemnation of Athanasius subscribed x < insertion from f 30v > x sent an & for that end p[33] invited Athanasius to his presence by a courteous letter designing that the western Bishops in this cause for \that is, {illeg} in the language of ye Court) commanded him to come/ \by a courteous letter \(sent by Montanus) invited Athanasius to his presence/ gave Athanasius leave to {illeg} q[34] designing that/ his cause should be heard before this Council for ye satisfaction of ye Western Bishops. But Athanasius declined the judgement as he had done that at the Council of Cæsarea before in ye reign of Constantine. {illeg} In the Council the Popes Legates \At this message z[35] Athanasius & his friends were affrighted fearing the anger {of ye Emperor if} he did not go & ye danger if he did. But in the end he resolved not to go {and} returned wthout doing this businesse. In this Council the Popes Legates/. But Athanasius declined the judgment as he had done that of the Council of Cæsarea before in ye reign of Constantine. In this Council the Popes Legates – – < text from f 31r resumes > & there Vincentius b[36] ye Popes Legates Vincentius of Capua & Marcellus subscribed proposed that for the peace of ye Churches they were ready {illeg} to con \subscribe the condemnation/ provided ye heresy of Arius might be first condemned. But being told that they were not |to| prescribe ye order of things \all/ the Council subscribed except Paulinus of Treves who was thereby {sic} banished. And thereupon Pope Liberius c[37] in an epistle to Hosius re complained that he hoped had had in vain beleived that ye Gospel of God might have been preserved by ye his Legate {sic} Vincentius, but he yet he not only failed of gaining \obteining/ the proposals {illeg} he was to insist on, but was brought over to {illeg} subscribe. Two years after another Council was called at Millan of 300 Bishops & < insertion from f 30v > Athanasius r[38] summoned to come to ye Emperor in order to be first {illeg} Messenger {illeg} (whose name if I mistake not was Diogenes) returned {illeg} Athanasius. {illeg} he & his friends at Alexandria thinking the journey unsafe therefore (if I understand Athanasius's s[39] Apology) not suffering ye messenger to have accesse to him. \to deliver the message/ \sent for {illeg} by Diogenes, & then by Syrianus \s/[40] \who came wth ye rectors of the Province & forced {illeg}/ but the people being prepared to resist, the messenger returned wthout him. And soon after came Syrianus wth armed force to take him & place George in his room./ In this Council therefore the Bishops all subscribed

✝ Athanasius sent for by Diogenes

✝ Diogenes was sent to bring Athanasius: but being resisted by ye people returned without him. In this Council therefore the Bishops all subscribed – – – < text from f 31r resumes > they all re subscribed readily except Lucifer Calaritanus ye Popes Legate & Eusebius Vercellensis: Eusebius d[41] laid down before ye Council ye Nicene creed promising to do what they desired if that were first subscribed, but when ye sentence of k[42] Athanasius was insisted on as ye businesse of ye Council he perswaded Dionysius of Millan that the Nicene faith was struck at & fraudulently procured his name to be wiped out of ye subscriptions. Whereupon these three were banished. # < insertion from f 30v > {#} After Syrianus had been some time at Alexandria, in ye beginning of ye {illeg} {illeg} after ye message of Diogenes, \who came/ Syrianus, ye chief {illeg} \commander/ of ye forces of {illeg} {illeg} to take him & place George in his room & after some time he {illeg} {In ye beg}inning of ye next year ye Emperor sent {illeg} Syrianus wth {illeg} {In the begin}ning of the next year Syrianus after he had staid a while at Alexandria attempted to take Athanasius, & place George in his roome \but missed of him/ \by force/ & ye same year a Council at Byterris \was called at Bituris/ in Gallia; But Athanasius after some {illeg} \& ye Bishops tried/ Council subscribed \his condemnation/ except Hilary & Rhodianus who promised & the Bishops now convened subscribed his condemnation except Hilary & Rhodianus who promised – – – –

# In the beginning of the next year Syrianus after he had staid a while at Alexandria attempted to take Athanasius by force & the same year a Council was called at Bituris in Gallia. But Athanasius after some resistance escaped |  fled , & the Bishops now convened subscribed his condemnation. < text from f 31r resumes > The next year another Council was called at Byterris in Gallia & where \only/ the where e[43] Hilary & Rhodanius promised to subscribe if ye Nicene faith were first ratified, but for refusing otherwise to subscribe \they/ were banished. The next year Hosius subscribed at Sirmium but {sic} Liberius suffered two years banishment & then sent f[44] a letter of submission to ye Oriental Bishops {illeg} in wch he writes thus. Ego Athanasium non defendo: sed quia decessor meus susceperat illum bonæ memoriæ Iulius Episcopus decessor meus, verebar ne forte ab aliquo prævaricator {existemarer} judicarer. At ubi cognovi, quando Deus voluit placuit \juste/ vos illum condemnasse; mox consensum meum commodavi sententijs vestris &c. So then Athanasius was now condemned by all ye West {sic} except six Bishops, & \even/ those {illeg} {illeg} g[45] in offering \objecting the danger of the faith & proposing/ to condemn him provided ye faith was first confirmed, did really condemn him. If All the West in making this proposal \did freely/ condemn {sic} him freely antecedently to their subscriptions. By this proposal they declared \sufficiently confest/ that they they had not seen Arsenius alive \nor could prove that he had been seen alive either/ either at Tyre or any where else, nor that the Mareotic Acts were false. They By this proposal \by this/ they declined <31v> insisting upon ye innocence of Athanasius & declared \discovered/ that they durst not put the issue of ye controversy between them & ye east upon it rely upon it & that the {illeg} put ye issue of ye debate upon it. By this \rely upon it: by this/ they declared that they had formerly defended Athanasius \him/ upon other considerations then his innocence, & \if {illeg}/ those considerations being \were/ removed, they were satisfied that they might justly & according to ye ecclesiastical Canons subscribe to his condemnation.

7. And if it were not enough for Athanasius to be thus condemned by all the world; And I \shall leave it to be considered whether he was not/ suspect he was also condemned by himself. ffor < insertion from lower down f 31v > ‡ For if he refused to \durst not/ come to ye Council of Cæsarea wthout when summoned thither \was convened to hear his cause & he would not go thither thô commanded by/ by ye Emperor to answer ye accusations, \& the Council waited long for his coming/ if the next year he came not to Tyre wthout being threatned by ye Emperor & then brought he came to Tyre unwillingly & brought wth him a great multitude to create disturbances & hinder proceedings If he came as the & hinder proceed {illeg} that judgment might not proceed, if when he came there he refused to stand in judgment, \(all wch ye Council of Tyre q[46] in their circulatory letters represented)/, if both before & after judgment he feigned stories & Letters to justify himself, \all/ this argues a guilty conscience. The very feigning of stories & letters undermines & {over} < text from higher up f 31v resumes > if he feigned stories & letters to to {sic} justify himself, \& {illeg}/ this argues a guilty conscience. If This undermines \& overthrows/ all that was ever said or done for his justification either by himself or others because \ffor/ it resolves all his defense into a figment, & such a defense when detected is equipollent to a confession of guilt.


Quest. 14
Whether Athanasius was not seditious.

[47] The Council of Tyre in their circulatory letter whein {sic} they declared his condemnation; charged him wth turbulent behavior in ye Council.

[48] Constantine ye great when Antony moved in his behalf replied that he was seditious \petulant arrogant & the author of discord & sedition/.

The Council of Philippolis represented \(as you may see at large in their letter) to ye Churches)/ yt after his return from Gallia he was more turbulent then before & tyrannical then before, creating \& setting up/ Bishops against Bishops \{in setting factions to}/ in ye Eastern Churches where he had no authority to intermeddle, & in Egypt going about wth armed force & doing violence to many \& being as exorbitant in Egypt./

When he was ready to be banished \by the {illeg} Emperor/ a second time, he called ye Council of Alexandria & wth ye agr their approbation wrote a circulatory together wth them wrote a letter to all ye world, in ye end of wch they laboured to put ye {illeg} all their friends into a tumult against ye eastern Churches & by consequence against their Emperor. For after they had made their complaint \a long complaint against/ against the Eastern Churches they thus conclude \wth an exhortation to invade & destroy them {illeg} them by open force & violence./ Therefore \beloved (say they)/ how these things are not to go unrevenged, ye even ye {sic}, b beloved even you \beloved/ may see. For they are grievous & remote from ye doctrine of Christ. Certainly. ffor this cause therefore we being assembled together have written in common to you praying your prudence in Christ to receive this or contestation & to grieve together wth or fellow Bishop Athanasius, & to conceive indignation against the Eusebians who endeavour these things that wickednesse & malice may not prevail against ye Church. ffor we pray & implore you to be revengers of this injustice, citing the saying of ye Apostle, T Put away from amongst your selves that wicked person.[49] For the things wch they do are wicked & \not/ worthy {sic} of communion. Therefore heare them not if they write any more against Athanasius: for whatever comes from them is false, even thô they set ye hands of ye Egyptian Bishops to their epistles. For those Bishops are not us but Meletians.) This was ye carriage of Athanasius & his creatures towards their Emperor & ye Eastern \his/ Churches: & by this being certain record, you may thence judge of \know of what spirit they were & judg of their carriage in/ all ye rest.

A while after when their Emperor sent an armed force to displace Athanasius & place Gregory in his room, (for Athanasius would \& his party would/ never go bl yeild to any thing but force) {illeg} they he shut himself up in a church wth a multitude against ye soldiers & when they could defend ye Church no longer left it on fire: {illeg} of wch action <32v> Council of Philippolis make this mention Constituto jam in ejus \Athanasij/ locum, ex judicio Concilij sancto et integro episcopo sacerdote, ut barbarus hostis ut pestis sacrilega adductis gentilium populis Dei templu{m} incendit, altare commisuit, et clam exit de civitate occultéqꝫ {sic} profugit. Its true, the friends of Athanasius[50] laid ye crime upon ye friends of George: but whether the Georgians burnt a Church \& defact an Altar/ they were to use \themselves/ or the Athanasians desec defact & burnt what they could use no longer I leave to the {sic} considerd Readers judgment.

When Athanasius was thus displaced, he sent about wrote a circulatory letter to all his friends to stirr them up to revenge. The Letter begins thus

The Epistle of Athanasius to ye Orthodox of all regions, when he suffered a persecution by the Arians

The things we have suffered are grievous & intollerable & cannot be sufficiently declared: but yet that I may in brief expresse their grievousness, {illeg} its proper to put you remind you of a history out of sacred writ. A Levite being injured in his wife & reflecting upon ye greatnesse of ye indignity . . . . . . . sent her body cut in pieces to all ye tribes of Israel, that this injury might be beleived \they might look upon this \common/ injury as done/ not only to him but to all them {illeg} all, in common & yt either if they might \they/ compassionated {sic} his case & \they might/ revenge it or else if |they| neglected {it} \the wickednesse/ they might be ashamed. |Now| The messengers told what the fact, & they that heard & saw {sic} it said there was never any such thing done since Israel came out of Egypt. Therefore all ye tribes were moved, & they all \of them/ as if each had suffered were gathered together. In conclusion they that had committed this wickednesse were invaded & conquered & made an anathema by all. them all. For they that came together \{illeg}/ respected not the {sic} kindred \of the transgressors/ but the {sic} wickednesse. You know ye story, brethren, & what is reported in ye scriptures concerning this matter it, & I will say no more of it, seing I write to them yt know it, & am desirous \earnest/ to shew you things wch transcend these. For I have told you this history, that \by comparing/ those things being compared wth ye ꝑsent & understanding how that these things exceed ye cruelty of those, you might may conceive a greater indignation then they did against ye transgressors. ffor ye bitternesse of the persecutions against us is transcendent & ye calamity of ye Levite is but small if compared wth what is now attempted against the Church &c. Then after many things spoken about his sufferings \about his expulsion/ to inflame the the western churches he thus goes on. This tragedy, saith he, Eusebius with his companions long since designed & now has put them in execution by means of calumnies By wch they have {sic} traduc't us to ye Emperor. Nor are they content with this, but seek <33r> |to| kill me & make \shew/ themselves so terrible to my friends that they all fly & expect to be slain by them. But ye ought not to conceive feare from their wickednesse but rather to revenge & it & be incensed against those who thus these innovators. For if when one member suffers all the members suffer, & according to ye blessed Apostle we must weep wth those that weep. Certainly so great a Church being injured hurt, every one as if he were hurt {illeg} ought to revenge the injury as if he himself were hurt. ffor it is or common Saviour who is blasphemed by them & they are ye Canons of us all wch they violate. ffor if whilst you sat in ye Church {sic} & ye people assembled peaceably wthout the \any/ complaint of any body & suddenly by ye edict of the Prince a successor should be sent to any of you & such things should be done against you, would you not be angry moved wth indignation? would you not seek \to/ revenge it? It's therefore just that you should be conceive indignation, least if this thing be past by in silence, the mischief creep by degrees into every Church, & or discipline \at length/ be bought & sold &c. Thus far Athanasius.

And this is enough to let you see ye spirit of yt man ffor {illeg} \ffor this shews plainly/ how for ye sake of a Bishoprick he laboured to set ye whole \Roman/ world on flame, to make a shism between ye eastern & western churches & to stir raise a civil war against his own Emperor. ffor this end therefore he fled from Alexandria to Rome & ceased not to incense the western Bishops th till by their interest he wth ye western Emperor Constans, he procured a Council to be called at Sardica wherein 'twas designed that ye eastern Bishops should stand at ye barr as criminals & be judged by the western. And when this usurpation would not be yeilded to but ended in that schism \between ye east & west/ wch Athanasius & his Alexandrine Council wrot sollicited: he ceased not till by ye same interest the Emperor Constans was prevaild with to threaten a civil war upon his brother \Constantius/ unlesse he would restore Athanasius. Thus did this Egyptian Levite for ye \go on to/ revenge ye losse of his deare spouse the Bishopric of Alexandria, but \{illeg}/ the eastern bishops being men of a more Christian temper advised the Emperor, that {illeg} it was advised their Emperor to peace & so Athanasius was restored again to ye mistresse of his affections.

One would now think that this great spir he was now sufficiently revenged of his Emperor, & yet this great {spirit stopt not} here but afterwards sollicited ye Tyrant {Magnentius} by a letter: wch letter after ye death {ruin and death of that Tyra}nt was found amongst his papers, & <33v> \to ye Emperor/ Athanasius indeed in his first Apology saith this letter was not written by him but found amongst feigned by them that found it. But \he/ yt could feign other men's letters, could deny his own. In this apology he represents that he answers three objections, \ye/ 1st that he had stirred up {illeg} the western Emperor Constans against ye Easte his own Emperor Constantius, the 2d that he had endeavoured \also/ by that letter to stirr up Magnentius against him & ye 3d that he did not obey this Emperor \afterwards/ come into ye west when the Emperor sent for him: To ye first he answers that he did not stir up Constantius, to ye second that he did not write that Letter & to ye 3d that he did not know it was ye Emperors will that he should come into ye west, If you {illeg} the first of ye three messengers wch were sent for him delivering a let \(as he represents) \a/ lying/ letter from ye Emperor, the other two delivering none at all \next delivering none message, letter nor message at all/. If you can beleive that he answered sincerely to ye first & third objection you may beleive he did so to the second. For my part I rather think that he who wrote two \public/ circulatory letters to stirr up ye {illeg} Western Empire against ye Eastern did \endeavour to/ stir it up, & he that refused to obey Constantine ye great was also refractory to Constantius, as Sozomen tells us he was.[51] ffor its possible \to me incredible it seems incredible/ that Constantius should \assemble two Councils to hear his cause/ send for him by two or three messengers \first by a messenger wth a letter & then by two other messengers \successively/ wth armed forces/, & yet he not understand \all this while/ that he was sent for. |The bringing the Roman Legions against him ye third time to take him by force shews that he did not only know he was sent for, but made some resistance the therefore second time & therefore I take ye relation of Sozomen to be true, wch was as follows.[52] |

When the people of Alexandria were prepared to resist ye Emperors messengers & Syrianus was sent to take him by force & for this end ye Roman Legions were called for that end called out in Egypt & Libya to Alexandria & then Syrianus being told that he was hid in ye Church called Theone, came suddenly |&| brake ye d{oor} Whereupon followed a combat betwe the \armed/ friends of Athanasius who were with him in ye Church fell upon ye soldiers |&| defended the Church aga \while he made his escape/ & being there {illeg}ng up the soldiers arms in triumph {illeg} wrote the following letter to all ye people to stirr them up to their assistance.

The people of Alexandria to all ye catholick Church wch is under Athanasius the most reverend Bishop.

He tells us therefore that When ye first Messenger [Montanus] brought ye Emperors Letters, {illeg} Athanasius & his friends were extreamly troubled thinking {illeg} it not safe for him to go nor wthout danger for him to stay. But ye advice for his staying prevailed & so ye Messenger returned wthout doing his businesse. The next year those \summer/ (or rather as Athanasius saith, after 26 months) {another Messen}ger [Diogenes] coming \being sent/ from ye Emperor & coming wth <52r> the Rectors of ye Province, forct Athanasius from the city & troubled his made war upo made a sharp war upon his clergy. But when ye people of Alexandria resumed courage, this messenger also seing the people prepared to fight returned without compassing his message. A while after Not long after [Syrianus the Roman Legions were called out of Egypt & Libya [to Alexandria by the Syrianus the Chief commander] & it being told that Athanasius was hid in ye Church called Theon, the Syrianus & Hilary who was sent to hasten this businesse, taking the soldiers brake into ye church at an unexpected time \suddenly in ye night at {illeg} at an unexpected {illeg} time of ye night/ to seek for Athanasius, but found him not. Thus far Sozomen. Athanasius represents yt he & his people were passing ye night \together/ in devotion, but by a letter wch they wrote soon \four days not presently long/ after \(the last day of Ianuary)/ to all ye people under Athanasius to stirr them up to their assistance, I find that they resisted ye soldiers \& beat them/ & by consequence were armed \to guard their Bishop/ & that they kept ye church by force & there hung up in triumph ye arms wch they took from ye soldiers |the arms of the soldiers in triumph. Which is a notable instance of the seditious spirit of Athanasius & his followers.| The letter is in Athanasius's works p. 866, & begins thus.

The people of Alexandria to ye catholick Church wch is under Athanasius the most reverend Bishop.

We have long since protested {illeg} concerning ye nocturnal invasion wch both we & ye Church [or Temple] suffered althô there needs no testimony of what ye whole city knows. ffor ye bodies of the dead found afterwards were exposed to ye people & the arms & bows wch were found in ye Church do proclaim aloud their wicked fact. Then for stirring up the people to joyne with them they represent that the President Syrianus did it without ye Emperors order & was afraid for what he had done & endeavoured by force to compel them to deny that there was any tumult or any body slain by the soldiers, & afterwards go on to tell ye story thus. On ye 5t of ye Calends of February we were watching in ye church [all night] in the church & being at prayers because of the assembly that was to meet on ye preparation, the Commander, Syrianus wth many Legions of soldiers having drawn swords & other weapons & being armed wth helmets & other armour, suddenly set upon us whilst we were at prayers & reading ye scriptures, brake ye doors & some began to throw darts, others cried an alarm, so that there was made a great clashing of arms the drawn <52v> swords shining by candle light & Virgins were slain & troden under foot. And whilst their leader marshalled his army, the Bishop sat in his throne & exhorted all to prayers & being thrust hither & thither was almost pulled to pieces, & when in a great deliquium he lay for dead & now does not appear, we know not what is become of him. A little after they further add that ye arms wch were left in ye church by those who brake in & wch still hang up in ye church were no light argument of yt hostile incursion so that they could not deny it. For Gorgonius the Governor of ye City hath, say they, often sent a military hangman wth a Captain to take them down but we would not suffer them that ye thing may be known to all men. Then they go on to say how that as they had already resisted unto blood so if it were the Emperors pleasure yt they should be thus persecuted, they were all ready to suffer martyrdome, that is to dy in that resistance. Their words run thus. If it be the edict of the Prince to persecute us, we are all ready to suffer martyrdome. But if it be not ye Emperors edict we entreat ye Prefect of Egypt Maximus & ye other Magistrates that they desire the Prince that such things be no more committed & we desire that this or prayer may come to him that no other Bishop be introduced here. In hindring wch we have resisted unto blood, desiring the most reverend Athanasius.

When the relation of these things came to ye Emperors ears it so incenst him that he gave order to quell ye rebellion & put ye incendiaries to death, & thereupon followed another battel of \The city being thus inflamed by these incendiaries there followed other broiles before it could be quelld of all which/ wch Lucifer Calaritanus makes in a railing letter \{illeg} book/ wch he wrote against Constantius, makes this mention.[53] Recordare, Constanti, de scelerum tuorum memoria recenti, quam tibi in civitate Alexandrinonum inussisti: quantos per abrupta una tinctore tincta subscriptionis tuæ dejecerit, quantos gladio demeti fecerit, quantos fame sitiqꝫ exedi, vel carceribus necari, quantos intercepto effecerit spiritu strangulari: et tamen his omnibus crudelitatibus in sanctos martyres, quos tuus interfecit gladiatorius animus, cùm sævieris; in nos crudelius sævis, dum retines gladium.

Yet did not this sedition {illeg} rebellion end here. /Nor were these stirs of short continuance.\ ffor <53v> Athanasius {illeg} exclaiming against ye proceedings of Constantius as a vehement {illeg} persecution & celebrating all those {illeg} who suffered in ye cause \who were slain or taken prisoners/ as martyrs & confessors, kept up the plaid the trumpeter to the rebellion & kept it up for a good while as you \may/ understand by that railing book wch Hilary wrote against Constantius, in wch he has 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. These words sufficiently shew that ye sedition was both great & lasting. So great was it that Constantius whilst it was on foot wrote thus to the {illeg} citizens of Alexandria.[54] I know not, saith he, whether any thing hath \ever/ happened wch may be compared wth {sic} these things seing many in this City were blinded & there presided a man who was emersed from ye lowermost hell: who as in the dark, seduced the desirers of truth to lies – – – – & the common-wealth was carried as with a torrent, all things as in a flood being contemned: & one ruled the multitude who (to speak most truly) differed nothing from ye vulgar meChchanicks, having contention with the city only because he could not cast it into hell. But that excellent man durst not come to plead his cause in judgment. And in ye end of ye Letter. Whilst ye most wretched Athanasius convicted of most foule crimes for wch he can never be sufficiently punished no not thô he should be ten times killed, wander abroad from place to place, 'twould be absurd to suffer his flatterers & ministers, a sort of jugglers & such as it is not fit to name, to raise seditions here, concerning whom I have long since commanded ye judges to put 'em to death: who perhaps may not so perish if in time they return from their former crimes [{illeg} of \viz. of raising/ seditions & shun those to whom ye most wicked Athanasius was Leader: who hurt the Common wealth & laid his most impious & wicked hands upon, most holy men.

In short the sedition was so great \Egyptians were so seditious/ that afterwards when Valens would have expell'd Athanasius he durst \could/ not meddle with him for fear of another war with the armies of the Egyptian Clergy. Athanasius by ye \mere/ strength of his party kept his bishopric all ye reign of Emperor \effect it but {illeg} such the {illeg} such after a short attempt to remove him found it necessary to desist. {illeg}/ For it was not Alexandria alone but all Egypt & Libya wch was inflamed by this sedition the people wth their Bishops & clerg Presbyters being \every where/ stirred up by the above mentioned letter of ye Alexandrians & getting into bodies in the field: whereupon at length followed a skirmish in the <53r> wildernesse like that \nocturnal one/ at Alexandria, as Athanasius in his first Apology thus mentions.[55] Whilst I was wondring, saith he, at these things, behold there came gr again another grievous report concerning Egypt & Libya: namely that almost ninety bishops were expelled & their churches given to ye Arians; sixteen of them being banished & the rest being partly put to flight & partly compelled to dissemble. ffor the persecution there was said to be like that at Alexandria, the brethren being gathered together in the wil a desart place neare a Cæmetery to pray on the Passover & on sundays, & the commander of the forces coming wth more then three thousand soldiers armed wth armour & naked swords & arrows & falling upon the Christians: whereupon ensued followed such slaughters as use to follow upon in such assaults, the impression being made upon weomen & children who did nothing else but pray. Thus does Athanasius palliate & sanctify these seditions as if his party were assembled out of all Egypt & Libya with so many Bishops & kept the field in a great body together for no other end but to pray on Sundays & as if ye Roman Legions came armed to conquer nothing but weomen & children. But this is his poetical \flourishing/ way of talking in all his writing narrations writings.


Quest. 15
Whether Constantius persecuted the Athanasians for religion or only punished them for immorality.

What sort of martyrs & confessors those were wch Athanasius so much celebrates in his works you have already heard, & may further understand by this what Athanasius says of them in his epistle to ye Moncks; where speaking first of ye bishops wch were banished before ye above mentioned skirmish in the wildernesse & then of the Bishops of all Egypt Libya & Pentapolis wch in that skirmish were partly put to flight & partly taken prisoners & banished \banished/ as many of them \banished/ as would not submit, he saith.[56] Be it that against Athanasius & \ye/ other Bishops wch they have banished they could feign false pretences of crimes, yet those things are nothing to this new kind of evil. ffor what crime could they feign against all Egypt Libya & Pentapolis? ffor they have not attempted them severally that they might be able to feign fals accusations but have set upon all together, so that if they should feign any thing they should presently be condemned for lyars. To ye same purpose Athanasius has another passage in this Epistle. [57] Be it, saith he, that they have made Athanasius a criminal yet what have the other Bishops done? What have pre pretenses of crimes have they against them? What Arsenius was killed by them? or what Macarius or broken cup are they concerned in? or what Meletian acts a part? Therefore by the things laid to their charge those objected against Athanasius are shewed to be false & mutually by what has been done \framed/ against Athanasius it is manifest that the things against them are feigned. These passages sufficiently shew that the best of Athanasius's martyrs & confessors suffered as criminals \evil doers/ & seditious persons & that Constantius & his Bishops so far \studiously/ avoided punishing them for their faith, that rather then do it they chose to feign false accusations, if you will beleive Athanasius.

Now by ye Egyptian martyrs & confessors you may know what those were in other places of all wch Lucifer Calaritanus gives you the following account where speaking to Constantius he saith: [58] Mactasti quamplurimos in Alexandria, laniasti certos toto in orbe, disperdisti <35r> resistentes tibi varijs in locis. sed hi omnes quod tu audire minimè vis, martyres sunt: illos omnes beatissimos tuo mactatos gladio in paradiso esse qui credimus. Thus you see ye martyrs Athanasius & Lucifer & their companions \of the Athanasians/ for wch Constantius is in history recorded for a persecutor, were such as perished by ye sword in resisting the higher powers.

To these you may add ye six or seven west Bishops who were banished for not subscribing the Condemnation of Athanasius. |For| they {sic} were banished deposed by Councils of their own religion, & therefore suffered not for their faith. They endeavoured to keep up a schism between ye eastern & western churches, & so were seditious \banished as enemies to the peace. of the Church/. They refused to debate upon those matters for wch ye Emperor called the Councils & unless {sic} they might have their own matters first dispatcht & so suffered as politicians for usurping upon ye Emperors right. They profered to comply if the Nicene Creed {sic} were first ratified & so acknowledged it lawfull to comply & by consequence were banished for resisting ye higher powers where it was their duty to obey. So far was the Emperor from being a Persecutor that these Bishops wrote railing books & were enraged at his clemency & wrote railing books against him to provoke him to severity.

So soon as the Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia were over Athanasius & his friends falling into a rage at the Emperors successe began to write railing books against him, & Athanasius indeed labours to perswade his Egyptians that the Emperor overcame the western Bishops by tyrannical severity \asperity/ & terror, & yet the contrary is certainly true. For Hilary in a very railing book wch he wrote at that very time \against the Emperor/[59] attributes the successe to ye Emperors |his| clemency. courteous behaviour. He calls this Book a confession & wishes he had wrote it in ye reign {sic} of Nero or Dioclesian that he might have suffered for it. For saith he I could have endured any death whether of to be sawn in pieces wth Isaiah or burnt wth ye three Children or crucified or cast into ye sea: & then he goes on in these words. Pugnaremus Adversus enim absolutos hostes felix mihi illud certamen fuisset, quia nec dubium relinqueretur quin persecutores essent qui ad negandum te, pænis, ferro, igni compellerent, neq{ue} ad testificandum plus tibi nos qum mortes nostras liceret impendere. Pugnaremus enim in palam et cum fiducia contra negantes, contra torquentes, contra jugulantes: /et nos populi qui tanquam duces suos ad confessionis religionem intelligentia – –\ <36r> {et nos populi tui tanquam duces suos ad confessionis religionem intelli}gentia persecutionis publicæ comitarentur. At nunc pugnamus contra persecutorem fallentem, < insertion from f 35v > et nos populi tui tanquam duces suos ad confessionis religionem intelligentia persecutionis publicæ comitarentur. At nunc pugnamus contra persecutorem fallentem – – < text from f 36r resumes > contra hostem blandientem, contra Constantium Antichristum qui non dorsa cædit, sed ventrem palpat: non proscribit {illeg} 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 ignes publice minatur, sed gehennam privatim accendit: non contendit ne vincatur, sed adulatur ut dominetur: Christum confitetur ut neget: unitatem procurat ne pax sit: hæreses comprimit ne Christiani sint: sacerdotes honorat ne Episcopi sint: Ecclesiæ tecta struit ut fidem destruat. All wch is as much as to say that Constantius persecuted not the men but the faith, & did |it| not by tortures, proscriptions prisons & deaths, but by fallacy, flattery deceiving, flatering, tickling, enriching & honouring ye {illeg} \western/ clergy & building their churches. And a little after he to ye same purpose he adds a little after Omnia sævissima sine invidia gloriosarum mortium peragis Novo inauditoqꝫ ingenij triumpho de diabolo vincis et sine martyrio persequeris. Plus crudelitati vestræ Nero; Deci, Maximiane debemus: Diabolum enim per vos vicimus &c. At tu omnium crudelitatum crudelissime damno majore in nos et venia minore de sævis. Subrepis nomine blandientis occidis specie religionis, impietatem peragis, Christi fidem Christi mendax prædicator extinguis. Non relinquis {sic} in saltem miseris excusationes, ut æterno judici suo pænas & aliquas laniatorum corporum præferant cicatrices: ut infirmitas defendat necessitatem. Scelestissime mortalium omnia ita temperas ut excludas et in peccato veniam et in confessione martyrium. Sed hæc ille pater tuus artifex humanarū mortium docuit, vincere sine contumacia jugulare sine gladio, persequi sine infamia, odire sine suspicione mentiri sine intelligentia, profiteri sine fide, blandire sine bonitate, agere quid velis nec manifestare quæ velis. Thus does Hilary in one & ye same breath rail at Constantius as ye most cruel of Persecutors & yet declare that his persecution consisted in nothing but love & kindnesse. By this means he had better successe than Nero Decius & Ma the heathen Persecutors & therefore was \in Hilary's opinion/ more cruel not to ye bodies but to ye souls of men. Hilary therefore {finding himself deserted by} almost all {the world, and being thereby reduced to despair, wrote this railing book, &} <37r> {to provoke ye Emperor to kill him presented it to him at Con}stantinople A.C. 360, hop{ing thereb}y to fix ye name {of} persecutor < insertion from f 36v > to provoke ye Emperor to kill him presented it to him at Constantinople A.C. 360 (as Baronius shews[60]) hoping thereby to fix the name of persecutor < text from f 37r resumes > upon him & that of martyr upon himself. But tho this railing was crimen læsæ majestatis & in that government punishable wth death: yet ye Emperor was so far from being provoked to do any thing wch might \but/ look like persecution that that {sic} \on the contrary/ he thereupon released Hilary out of {illeg} banishment & licensed him to return home into Gallia, \thus endeavouring to overcome evil with good./

How far this Emperor was from being a Persecutor I is further manifested by a story told of him by Gregory Nazianzen,[61] wch I will give you in ye words of his Interpreter is as follows.

Constantium autem (nam referre hoc convenit,

Ne vetera sola digna quis verbis putet {illeg})

Verbum extulisse memoria dignum ferent.

Verbum extulisse memoria dignum ferunt.

Quadnam hoc? eum in nos Principum cum quispiam

Quondam incitaret, non ferens nos consequi {illeg}

Tantos honores (namqꝫ erat pius admodum

Vt siquis alius Principum quos novimus,)

Ac multa fatus tale quid mox subderet:

Animalne fingi p mitius potest ape?

Atqui legentes pungit hæc favos tamen.

Audivit: hócne te fugit, vir optime,

Stimulus nec ipsi quod vacet periculo?

Namqꝫ ipsa pungit, sed statim quoqꝫ interit.

The same Gregory Nazianzen also in his 1st Oration against Iulian thus expostulates wth \the soul of the deceased/ Constantius for making Iulian Emperor. Quid tibi accidit, Ô Imperatorum divinissime Christiqꝫ amantissime (eo: enim provehor ut tecum velut cum præsente atqꝫ audiente expostulem, etsi multò præstantiorem te esse scio quam ut a me reprehendi debeas, utpote qui Deo adjunctus sis, cælestisqꝫ gloriæ hæreditatem acceperis atqꝫ in tantum a nobis migraris ut imperium cum meliore commutares,) quodnam hoc consilium suscepisti qui omnes non tuæ solum sed etiam superioris memoriæ Imperatores animi solertia atqqꝫ et acumine longe antecellebas? &c And a little after Qui Dei {illeg} And a little Qui ……. Qui Dei {illeg} And a little after excusing Constantius for doing this he saith: Cum benignitem dixi id apertè dixi quod eum crimine omni ac culpa liberet. Cui enim vel ex ijs quibus non perinde cognitus erat dubium est quin ipse ob pietatem amoremqꝫ erga nos ac propensissimam bene de nobis merendi voluntatem non modo illum [sc. Iulianum] aut totius generis honorem imperijqꝫ {incrementum neglexisset,} verum imperio quoqꝫ ips{i omnibusque} <37v> {fortunis, atqꝫ ipsi deniqꝫ vitæ quæ nemini quicquam est carius, incollu}mitatem nostram < insertion from f 36v > fortunis utqꝫ ipsi deniqꝫ vitæ qua {illeg} \nemini/ quicquam {sic} est carius, incollumitatem nostram < text from f 37v resumes > atqꝫ \ac/ salutem haud illiben{ti} animo {prætulisset.} Neqꝫ enim usquam unquem ullius rei tam acri {amore} quam atqꝫ cupiditate correptus est, quam ille Christia{nos cresce}re atqꝫ in summam gloriæ potentiæqꝫ amplitudinem pervenire cupiebat. Ac neqꝫ 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 deniqꝫ quicquam {sic} ex omnibus rebus tantum ipsi voluptatis afferebat, quantum ut et nos per ipsum et per nos ipse tum apud Deum tum apud homines floreremus, ac forma semper & stabilis nobis potentia permaneret. – – – – – – – Qui quidem et siquid nobis molestiæ exhibuit {sic}, non nostri contemptu id fecit {illeg} nec ut nos contumelia afficeret, aut quod alijs quibusdam potius quam nobis commendare cuperet: sed ut omnes in unum coiremus, animorumqꝫ consensione jungeremur, nec per schismata inter nos dirempti atqꝫ dissecti essemus. Thus far Gregory: wch testimony coming freely from ye mouth of an enemy & an eye-witnesse of things is as great as can be desired. So Libanius \a heathen & therefore another enemy, gives him the same character. ffor/ in his Oration called Basiliscus, after he had described the behaviour of Constantius in war, |he| goes on thus: Verum cùm adeo illustris esset in armis, longe præstantior alijs in rebus, qum 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 sed cum magis quam cæteri sæviret, sed si magis qum alij clementia gavisus, omnes nihilo secius superaret &c. In short ye vertues of this Prince \Emperor/ were so illustrius that I do not find a better character given of any man \Emperor (I might almost say of any Prince/ for clemency, temperance, chastity, contempt of popular fame, \hearty affection to Christianity,/ justice, prudence, \princely carriage &/ & good government then is given of him \even/ by his \very/ enemies. who {illeg} him. But {illeg} so far so far |He kept up the imperial dignity of his person to the height & yet reigned in the hearts of his people & swayd the world by ther love: So far| was he from deserving the name of a persecutor. The greatest objection against him is that \Ammianus {illeg} him so far indeed objects that/ he took off his Vnkles, & prosecuted his \victory/ over Magnentius too far: but {illeg} he did ye first because they poisoned his father & ye last to secure \not himself but/ Christianity from ye he attempts of ye heathens. And these objections being removed the character of wch Ammianus gives of him \is great &/ agrees wth that of \Hilary/ Libanius & Nazianzen. And if these witnesses suffice not let me add a fift. ffor [62] Epiphanius saith that he was mercifull & good \& pious/ in all respects, {illeg} as the Son of the great & perfect & pious Constantine this only \thing/ excepted that \by the influence of his Bishops/ he erred in ye faith. All these witnesses lived in the reign of this Emperor & therefore knew what they wrote & being his enemies would not favour him \For they wrote after his death & so were at liberty to speak their minds/. And therefore {if any} later author affirms ye contrary he ought to be corrected.


Whether Athanasius \& his friends/ did not corrupt & feign \the/ records of the Councils of Nice & Sardica.

|For making you understand ye reason of this question I shall first explain what were the true records of these Councils.|

The Council of Sardica in their Epistle to Pope Iulius write that, Three things were to be treated of by them For, say they, the most religious Emperors permitted that all things discussed should be wholy disputed afresh & chiefly concerning the holy faith, & concerning the integrity of the truth wch they (the Eusebians) had violated, seondly {sic} concerning the persons wch they said were dejected by unjust judgment that if they could prove it righteous there might be a just confirmation thereof. And ye third question was that they had done grievous injuries to ye Church in disturbing Bishops Presbyters & Deacons & Banishing all the clergy. \What they had done in/ the {sic} two last the Council explains in the following part of the Epistle shewing how the ringleaders of the Eusebians were excommunicated by them for unjust judgment & those retained in communion whom by such judgment they had opprest: but of the first there is not a word now extant in the Epistle. No doubt they gave ye Pope an account of what they did in the first as well as of what they did in the other two because they say it was the chief & mention it wth designe to tell him what they had done therein. And therefore this letter has been purged.

And that it has, is evident from Sozomen who thus supplies the defect:[63] They, saith he [at Sardica] published another profession of faith more prolix than the Nicene yet containing the same opinion & not much differing from it in words. And Hosius & Protogenes who were then chief among the Bishops of the west convened at Sardica wrote letters to Iulius & testified that they had ratified the Nicene Decrees & for more perspicuities sake had {sic} expounded the same opinion more largely least the Arians abusing the briefnesse of that Creed should take occasion to draw into an absurd sense those that were unskilfull in such kind of disputes.

So then the Council of Sardica did certainly write an exposition of faith. ffor to this exposition the Hilary <38v> in his book against Constantius alludes to in these words Thou condemnest also, saith he to ye Emperor, the name of Substance whereby thou didst to the western churches falsly pretend thy self pious both to the Synod of Sardica & to that of Sirmium: that is to that of ye western bishops who met at Sirmium a year or two after ye Council of Sardica. And so Soebadius, when Hosius in ye next Council of Sirmium had newly subscribed against the homousios wrote thus concerning him. His authority, saith he, is no prescription because he either errs now or always did erre. ffor the world knows what he has beleived hitherto. & with what constancy he assented & condemned the Arians at Sardica & in the Nicene decree. What if he now thinks otherwise & those things are now defended wch he heretofore condemned & those condemned wch he defended? And of the same Creed speaks ye fourth General Council (that of Chalcedon) in their epistle to ye Emperor Marcian, where enumerating several confessions of faith wch had been formerly made, vizt the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan the Ephesine, that of S. Basil & that of Damasus in a Roman Synod) amongst the rest mention the Sardican. [64] Those also, say they, who at Sardica strove against the reliques of Arius sent their sentence to the Orientals, ….. Hosius presiding in composing it. And to put the question yet further out of doubt, Theodoret[65] has recorded the letter of the Council of Sardica to ye Churches; in ye latter end of wch this sentence or {sic} confession of faith is conteined. | But Athanasius for reconciling the Council of Nice & Sardica & stifling an objection against himself hath cut off all ye latter part of this letter part of this letter in his second Apology cut off all the latter part of this letter & denies that the Council of Sardica wrote any definition of faith.|

But Athanasius finding it an after the Council of Ariminum & Seleucia finding it requisite to vary from ye Sardican language, hath in his second Apology cut off all ye latter part of ye Letter wch concerns ye faith, & in his epistle to ye Antiochians (writ in the reign of Iulian ye Apostate from ye Synod of Alexandria) commands them that ye Table wch some boasted as if writ in the Council of Sardica concerning the faith they should not suffer to be once read or carried about: for, saith he, the Council defined no such thing but on the contrary decreed that nothing further should be writ concerning the faith nor any new Creed be pub- <39r> lished least the Nicene should seem imperfect & others should take occasion from thence to make new creeds perpetually. And Eusebius Vercellensis in his subscription to this epistle writes thus concerning it. And because, saith he, there is a fame abroad concerning the table of ye Council of Sardica: that it be not thougt {sic} constituted over & above the Nicene faith, I do also consent, least the Nicene faith should seem to be unsetled thereby nor is it therefore to be carried about. The meaning is this Now ye question is whether Athanasius in denying this table to be genuine & cutting off ye latter end of ye epistle of the Council of Sardica did not corrupt & smother the records of that Council. If that Council did decree about the faith (as we have given you very good evidence yt they did) then it must be allowed that he has falsified their records. But to make ye point a little clearer it will be convenient to explain why he did so.

The Council of Nice in decreing {sic} ye Son homousios to ye ffather understood that he & ye father were two substances of one nature or essence as Curcellæus & Cudworth have proved beyond all cavils. But the word being ambiguous & going abroad wthout those limits wch the Council had put to its signification, every one drew it to his own sense, & particularly in the West some great ones to propagate a notion of a singular substance wrote unius substantiæ in the Latin translation of ye Creed, & {illeg} language the Latine in turning this language again into Greek affirmed that there was but one hypostasis of ye ffather son & Holy Ghost, as you may see in ye letter of the Council of Sardica

The Greeks therefore finding the Nicene decree misinterpreted & abused by many for spreading ye opinions of Montanus, Praxeas, Noetius, Paul of Samosat Sabellius & such like Gnosticks (for 'twas the opinion of Simon Magus the Father of ye Gnosticks) repented of their having decreed ye word & began to forbear the use of it. And hence \arose/ a difference between ye Greeks & Latines, the Greeks suspecting the Latines of Sabellianism for holding one \singular/ hypostasis or substance & ye Latines suspecting the Greeks of Arianism for holding three hypostases. The Greeks therefore to clear themselves from the suspicion of Arianism anathematized the doctrine of <39v> Arius in several Creeds wch they then made, all wch are very orthodox as they that peruse them must acknowledge. But without the word homousios nothing would satisfy the Latines. And therefore in the Council of Sardica they condemned the Lati Greeks as hereticks for holding three hypostases divided from one another, & that is (as we expresse it) three distinct Hypostases & in opposition thereunto decreed that there should was but one Hypostasis of ye Father Son & Holy Ghost. And on the other hand the Greeks of the same Council anathematized those that held the \Son to be the/ Father Son & Holy Ghost to be ye same, reflecting thereby upon ye una hypostasis of the Latines as ye doctrine of Sabellius \whereby all three persons were made one thing/. And so the businesse came to a schism.

By this means the errors of the Gnosticks came still got ground in ye west till they came to such a height as Hilary in his book de Synodis (written to ye Bishops of Gallia & Brittain in ye times between ye Councils of Sirmium & Ariminum) describes. For there he tells them of a threfold opinion of that kind {illeg} spread \among them by the fallacius {sic}/ by the language of una substantia, the one of the Son's substance being entirely the substance of ye ffather, the other |of| its being \from eternity/ a part thereof, the third of ye substance of ye Deity being one at first & then divided into two. It remains, saith he, that wthout asking you know what things lead you into error out of simplicity security of simplicity, that is out of security arising from this simplicity in taking ye words \phrase/ una substantia in its most obvious but erroneous significations. And a little after then going on to explain this, he adds. Many of us, most dear brethren do so preach one substance of ye father & the son that they seem to preach it not so much piously as impiously. ffor this word has in it both a conscience of faith & a delusion in readiness. ffor if we preach one substance according to ye property & similitude of nature, so that the similitude may not define the <40r> species \[that is limit it to a singularity]/ but signify the genus, we preach it religiously provided that by one substance we understand the similitude of property so that their being one do not signify a singular \[substance]/ but two equals. By equality I mean a similitude without a difference so that similitude be recconed equality. And equality is therefore called one because tis eaven, I meane one in wch equal or eaven is signified & not wch is taken for one alone Therefore one substance, if it do not take away one of the subsisting persons nor divide one \[former]/ substance into two will be preacht religiously. But if we so call ye Father & son of one substance that he who subsists altho he have two names be notwithstanding one & alone; whilst we confesse ye Son in name we do not retain him in conscience if confessing one substance we esteem him with himself one \[substance]/ alone & singular both ye Father & ye Son. This is ye first erroneous sense of & tis namely Sabellianism: of wch you see Hilary saith namely singularity of substance, wch according to his description is Sabellianism. And of this, you see, he saith many of the western Bishops were guilty. The other two erroneous senses he thus describes. There is also, saith he, occasion given from that word occasion given of this great error that ye father be understood divided from himself & to have cut out a part of himself wch should be ye son. For so hereticks contend in preaching one substance & ye language of or pious confession seems much to favour these men so that whilst this word [one substance] by reason of an indefinite brevity is dubious it leads to error. There is also a third error in that when ye ffather & Son are said to be of one substance there may seem to be a former substance wch the two equals may have between them & so: as if ye speech signified three things one substance & two coheirs (as it were) of that substance. And then repeating the errors he subjoyns. And so one substance affirmed of the ffather & Son does either signify one thing with two names or one substance by division made two imperfect ones or a third former substance affirmed of two wch is therefore called one be- <41r> cause one is divided into two. Thus far Hilary concerning ye \three/ western errors arising from ye Nicene Creed {sic}, the first of wch was that of Hermogenes, Praxeas, Noetius, {illeg} Sabellius, & Simon Magus who made himself all three persons; {illeg} the second \& third/ those of Montanus, Tertullian, & Donatus, \Paul of Samosat, Hierax/ & the Manichees \the third that of Hierax & such as made their Gods \distinct/ projections from a former principle/ < insertion from f 40v > the Maniches & such Gnosticks as made \all such Gnosticks & others as/ derived the Son from ye Father by any division, eruption, efflux, or projection \or emission/ of substance as they did who before ye times of ye Nicene Council preacht them {sic} consubstantial. {to} ye ffather For this was then ye vulgar notion of consubstantial. But after ye Council of Nice \time of this Council/ the first of the {sic} three errors became the prevalent opinion. < text from f 41r resumes > But the first was \now/ ye prevalent opinion. ffor ye Council of Sardica decreed held one substance hypos substance in this sense as is manifest by their saying: We confess yt ye Son is the vertue of ye father, we confess yt he is ye λόγος word or reason of God ye Father besides wch there is no other & that ye word is true God & wisdom & vertue. This they say in opposition to Arius who denyed the Son to be ye λόγος ἐνδιάθετος or \that/ inward mind \& wisdom/ of ye Father by wch he is intelligent & wise, & therefore their opinion was that ye Son is yt λόγος ἐνδιάθετος or inward mind, that is, the attribute of ye hypostasis of ye Deity.

Hence therefore when ye Greeks condemned Marcellus of Sabellianism the Latines in ye Councils of Rome & Sardica defended him as orthodox: thô afterwards when they left their error & he stuck to it, he went for such a heretick as he had been condemned for.

Hence also when Hilary was sent for to ye Council of Seleucia, the Council \in the first place/ required ye faith of ye Gaules, because, saith Sulpitius Severus, the Arians had made ye eastern Churches beleive that ye western were Sabellian: but when he expounded his faith according to ye sense of ye Nicene Decree {sic} they readily admitted him. By wch circumstance it is manifest that it was not ye Council of Nice but ye abuse of that Council wch ye eastern Churches at that time laboured against.

| [Hence also many ….. ]| < insertion from f 40v > Hence also many of the homousians \for some time/ after ye death of Constantius used the language of one Hypostasis as Ierome, the Neocæsarienes & the followers of Paulinus Patriarch of Antioch who pleaded for this language the authority of ye Council of Sardica: but yet as many as used this language were by ye rest of ye Sab homousians accounted Sabellians notwithstanding that they distinguished ye hypostasis or substance of ye Deity into three {illeg} πρόσωπα or persons.

And as the eastern Bishops when the western began to call them Arians to baffle that accusation anathematized the positions of Arius: so {illeg} the homousians after they had been baffled in ye Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia as Sabellians, made a to cleare themselves from that imputation made a great noise against Sabellianism as you may see in their Councils which followed the reign of Constantius.

< text from f 41r resumes >

Those therefore who were for abolishing ye word homousios prest it by ye abuse thereof. For in one of the Creeds of ye Councils of Sirmium & Ariminum & that of Constantinople they decree that ye word usia or substance, because it was unwarily put by the [Nicene] ffathers, & being not understood by the people became a stumbling block to them, & because it was not in the scriptures, should be abolished. And immediately after b[66] in that of Constantinople \& Ariminum/ they add: Neither ought Hypostasis to be named of the Father Son & Holy Ghost. They do not say hypostases but hypostasis in the singular number, & so condemned hereby not the doctrine of three hypostases (for that was their <42r> but the Sardican confession of but one common hypostasis of ye Father Son & Holy Ghost.

Hilary in his book de Synodis[67] mentions three reasons by wch the Gallican Bishops he wrote to had been induced to abrogate the \word/ homousios in ye Council of Sirmium: the first of wch was the scandal ye word brought by implying one former substance divided afterwards into two, the second yt ye use of ye word had been condemned in ye Council of Antioch convened against Paul of Samosat about sixty years before ye Council of Nice, & ye third that ye word was not extant in scripture: & a little after repeating ye objection of scandal, he saith But perhaps it will be said this word ought to be rejected because it uses to be corruptly understood: And again; The homousios is understood in an ill sense: what's that to me who understand it in a good one? And again; But you will say ye ambiguity of ye word \homousios/ moves me with its scandal: Hear I pray wthout scandal & ye nakednesse of homæusios moves me. He grants that ye homousios by reason of its ambiguity was \apt to be misunderstood & had been/ misunderstood in ye west & yet is for continuing ye use of it because he understood it in a good sense & others might do {sic} so too if they pleased. For wch end he takes much pains in ye latter end of this book to make ye western Bishops understand his notion of it una substantia as if they had never heard of it before, vizt that this word denoted not one singular substance, nor a whole & its part nor two parts of a former whole, but two eternal equal substances of one kind, as I am apt to think they had not because ye Sardican faith had obteined in the west & met \not/ wth any opposition there till now, nor was opposed now by any orthodox party in ye west but ye those of ye eastern communion. The minor part was not now {illeg} opposed & condemned by the major but almost ye whole west sticking together in a body were convinced of error by the Acts of ye Council of Ariminum Nice produced \produced/ before them in ye Council

For in that Council, after a long debate about the signification of ye word homousios, it was agreed that it \For when the Emperor &c/ |See ye backside| You are to know therefore that ὅμος sometimes signifies sil similis, like, & that in composition as well as <43v> alone, as in the words ὁμόπαθὴς similis passionibus obnoxius obnoxious to like passions, ὁμόνεκρος like a dead body as to corruption, ὁμόφλοιος covered having a like bark. And hence arises two significations of ye word homousios. Either it signifies two things a substance arising from the substance of another thing by partition, eruption, efflux or emanation, or else it signifies a substance like another substance. The first was ye vulgar signification, but ye second was that wch ye Council agreed upon \the Council rejected this & agreed upon the second/ as Eusebius of Cæsarea told his Church expresly in a [68] letter written at that very time to them from ye Council. < insertion from f 42v > For when the Emperor Constantine the great {illeg} sitting in the middle of the Bishops of ye Council of Nice prest the word homousios upon ye {illeg} Council: & they {sic} Council for a time stiffly opposed it by reason of \untill the/ the {sic} corrupt significations of the word And hereupon the several significations of the word were considered & debated: wch were were rejected & such a signification as they could allow, proposed & agreed upon. For the word signifies either that a thing is of the same subst{ance} wth another or that it is of a like substance. ffor ὁμος sometimes signifies like & that in composition as well as alone, as in the word ὁμοπαθὴς obnoxious to like passions ὁμόνεκρος like a dead body as to corruption, ὁμόφλοιος having a like bark, & in this sense ὁμοούσιος signifies nothing more then ὁμοιούσιος of like substance. But vulgarly the word then signified a thing arisen of ye same substance wth another that is not consisting of ye same substance but arisen out of ye same substance & yt either by division, projection eruption or efflux of ye substance. This sense of ye word \therefore/ according to these several significations modes was first prop considered in ye Councel & rejected & then the second sense agreed upon as you may see related at large by Eusebius of Cæsarea in the [69] letter wch he wrote at that very time from ye Council to his Church. There was afterwards a third sense put upon ye word as if it < text from f 43v resumes > There was \afterwards/ a third sense now put upon the word as if it signified one common \entirely undivided undivided/ substance of \totally common to/ the ffather & Son: & this indeed is ye proper signification of una substantia but never was ye signification of homousios till ye Sabellians made it so. |And upon the baffling of this signification in ye Councils of Sirmium & Ariminū there was a fourth signification put upon the word of a specific or generical unity: but the sense wch ye Council put it self put upon ye word was not {illeg} any unity \of substance/ but only a similitude, of substance as is manifest by the letter of Eusebius.|

Now it was the custome of the Bishops in subscribing to expresse in a sentence or two what it was to wch they subscribed, \& when they subscribed wth any caution or reservation to express it/ (as you may see in ye Acts of ye Councils of Ephesus & Chalcedon & ye second of Nice) & wch are come to or hands entire. Whence [70] Valesius conjectures that they subscribed at Nice after some such manner as this I Eusebius of Nicomedia agree & subscribe to ye above written faith above written, but not to ye anathema. < insertion from f 42v > But after \when/ ye signification of ye word ὁμοούσιος had been much debated in ye Council {sic} & after many scruples & exceptions agreed upon: it is not to be imagined, that they \those who had been scrupulous/ would subscribe wthout expressing in what sense they took that word. And that they did express it & And therefore we are here beholden to Philostorgius for letting us know ye true matter of fact. For in ye end of the first book of his History, as Nicetas relates out of him, he infer related that in subscribing < text from f 43v resumes > But Philostorgius, as Nicetas relates out of him, has in ye end of the first book of his History informed us that {illeg} in subscribing the Nicene faith, some wrote {sic} over against their names the word ὁμοούσιος, & others by the advice of Eusebius instead of ὁμοούσιος wrote ὁμοιούσιος. Whence Photius saith that they subscribed fraudulently, even by the testimony of Philostorgius, because under ye word homousios they ὁμοούσιος they craftily hid ye {sic} of ὁμοιούσιος: that is interpreted ye first by the last & this that is interpreted the first by the last. If you can beleive wth Photius that one part of ye Council (& (if we may judge by all the following Councils of ye east), the much greater part,) were such knaves as to do this fraudulently & ye {illeg} Constantine ye great wth ye rest of ye Council such fools as to let them do it look on & let them do it fraudulently, you'l make a fine Council on't. But it has been ye constant practise of ye Catholicks to cry out <44r> fraud at every thing wch makes against 'em before they know whether it be so or not & thereby they have corrupted all history.

So then ye Nicene Fathers first in their debates agreed that ὁμοούσιος signified nothing more then that ye Son was of like substance with ye father, that is, that he was ὁμοι{illeg}ούσιος to him, & then by way of caution exprest this interpretation in their subscriptions. And at length the eastern Bishops by shewing the {sic} Acts of the Council wth these subscriptions, convinced the western Bishops that they had misinterpreted the Nicene Creed. For Sulpitius Severus speaking of ye times of ye Councils of Millain & Sirmium saith that the Arians (he means all those in communion wth ye eastern Churches) began to preach their heresy more openly & interpreting ye Nicene Council on their side wch by the addition of one letter they had corrupted, cast a mist before the truth. ffor where {illeg} ὁμοούσιον was written, wch is unius \of one/ substance {sic}, they said that ὁμοιούσιον was written wch is of like {sic} substance {sic}; granting a similitude so they might but take away the unity. By \this/ means, saith Severus, they cast a mist before the truth, that is to ye deception of \they deceived/ ye western Bishops: & by consequence those Bishops who had ye sight of ye Nicene records & were \best able to/ most concerned to find out ye cheat if there was there had been any, could find out none, but were convinced by what they saw. \Hosius himself who knew what was done at Nice could find out none \but yielded wth the rest./ And therefore/ I wonder how Severus many years after wthout seeing the records \all these things, wthout so much as seing the original Acts,/ came to know there was a cheat. But this has been ye constant practise of the Moncks to misrepresent & corrupt records \all things/ by pretending that here (wthout proof) that hereticks had corrupted them before. To clear up this point To put the question out of dispute I shall therefore shew by one more evidence & that an indisputable one that the Nicene subscriptions were \made/ on this manner. \Its enough that the age before him when these things were in agitation suspected no such fallacy. And how far they were from suspecting any may yet further appear by the following evidence./ For the Council of Illyricum collected about six or seven years after that of Ariminum when all things were fresh in memory, composed a Creed of which this was ye summ. [71] We confesse according to ye great & orthodox Synod that ye Son is {illeg} homousios to the father. Neither do we so understand homousios as some heretofore expounded it who did not subscribe sincerely & according to ye truth & as some now who <44v> call those men Fathers, abolishing the force of this word & treading in their steps who wrote that the word homousios denoted similitude in that ye Son was like none of ye creatures wch were made by him but bare ye similitude of the Father only alone. For they that thus expound it, do impiously teach that the Son of God is an excellent & most noble creature. All this plainly respects ye Coucil {sic} of Nice: for that was ye great & orthodox Synod, the only Synod wherein ye homousios was subscribed & ye Synod wherein it was interpreted {tog} of similitude in that ye Son was not like the creatures \made by him/ but like the father only, as you may see in ye above mentioned letter of Eusebius. Whence its plain not only that the ffat Nicene ffathers subscribed after this manner but also that the Greek Churches during the reigns of Constantius & Valens did acknowledge the authority own this Council & by vertue of these subscriptions plead it on their side: & that it was from thence that ye language of ὁμοιούσιος \had its rise & was/ spread so easily all over \all/ the east.

Now whilst those that held the S one substance common to ye Father & Son grounded their opinion upon ye Nicene decree, but afterward upon examining the records found themselves in an error, this opinion received such an universal baffle \in ye {illeg} reign of Constantius/ that \after/ it appeared no more in ye world for many ages \after/. For tho ye Latines after that \his/ reign of Constantius \the Latines tho they then/ returned again to their language of una substantia, yet they understood it thenceforward of a generical unity \only/ as if the Father Son was not of one & the singular substance wth ye Father but of one \& the same/ kind of substance. But in the east there was much distraction & in the {illeg} \Greeks of of Athanasius's party/ bid not only leave ye Sardican notion of una subst \one/ hypostasis but the language too. Yet some in ye east for a time retained the Sardican language {& spake} of one Hypostasis & particularly Paulinus Bishop of Antioch wth his followers & Ierome. Whence arose a quarrel between them & the Latines these {sic} one calling those {sic} other Arians for holding three hypostases & those {sic} calling these {sic} Sabellians for holding one substance {sic}. But Athanasius calling both par \together/ some of both parties before \him/ in a little Council \held/ at Alexandria, {illeg} \& examining/ them told them that they agreed in sense & so reconciled them. And because some of the greeks, & particularly Paulinus Bishop of Antioch wth his followers, used the Sardican <74r> with his own.


Quest Quest.
Whether Athanasius did not set on foot the invocation of saints.

The Christians of the first ages taught that at ye day of judgment, Christ would sentence some immediately to heaven others to perpetual torments & others to be baptized wth fire & shut up in prizon till they should pay ye outermost farthing. What was ye state of souls between death & the day of judgment the Greek Churches of those ages de (so far as I can find) \for I speak not of/ determined not till Athanasius in ye life of Antony by relating how Antony saw ye soul of Ammon ascend up to heaven, brought in an opinion that ye souls of the blessed went immediately \after death/ to heaven & by consequence that those of ye wicked went immediately to hell & those of the middle {illeg} degree to Purgatory. And because its absurd that those of ye men should be rewarded before they are judged therefore ye Athanasians have feigned {illeg} wthout any foundation in scripture that every man has a particular judgment at his death there is a double judgment, the first particular of every man at his death & ye second general. And to make out this opinion they allege ye promise of Christ to the thief wch if rightly pointed \may/ run {sic} thus. Verily I say unto the to day, Thou shalt be with me in paradise the words I say say unto the to day being opposed by way of answer to ye thiefs petition, Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. They allege also ye stor Parable of ye Dives & Lazarus applying it to ye present time, whereas if they had a right \the same/ notion of ye last day \wth the first Christians/ they would understand that it might as well belong to that time: & besides it is but a Parable. Th \They press also S. Paul's saying I desire to be dissolved & be wth Christ: not considering that ye interval between death & ye resurrection is to them that sleep & perceive it not, a moment. They # |# They argue also from the vision of Moses & Elias with Christ, thô {illeg} the vision was not of their souls (for Elias never died) but of their living bodies.|/ On the other hand if the saints go into heaven before ye day of judgment \resurrection/ [there is no force in Christs arguing for ye resurrection against ye Pharisees \from Gods saying I am the God of Abraham./ Matt 22: no force in St Pauls arguing that \this for it./ If ye dead rise not \our faith is vain, the dead in Christ are perished/ we are of all men most miserable 1 Cor 15 Every \what shal they do that are baptized for ye dead. 1 Cor. 15. If this opinion be true, then every/ \then every/ man is rewarded according to his works before Christ comes for that end \to {illeg} \{reward} them & the dead are judged before the time comes that they should be judged Apoc. 11 &// Many come from ye east & west & sit down wth Abraham & Isaac & Iacob \in heaven/ before ye {illeg} last day, \Matt. 8 & they that sleep in ye dust shine as ye stars in ye firmamt before they awake &/ Daniel stood \was to stood {sic}/ in his lot before that day \not only at ye end of the days but/ as soon as he was dead. Dan. {12} This opinion sits also hardly wth \Were not men greatly prejudiced they would consider/ such texts of scripture as these. \In death there is no remembrance of thee in the grave who shall give thee thanks Psal. 6. 5/ Shal thy loving kindness be declared in ye grave \thy wonders in the dark/ & thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? Psal 88:11, 12. The dead prais not ye Lord neither any that go down into silence Psal 115.17. The dead know not any <55r> thing . . . . . There is no work nor knowledge nor wisdom in ye grave. Eccles: 9.5, 10. The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee Isa. 38. 18. S. Peter tells us God hath begotten us again {illeg} unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Iesus Christ from ye dead, to an inheritance . . . . in heaven {sic} Pet. 1.3, 4 which {sic} is as much as to say that ye without ye resurrection there is no hope, no inheritance in heaven. And to ye same purpose speaks S. Paul. I would not have you ignorant brethren concerning them wch are asleep that ye {sic} sorrow not even as other wch have no hope ffor if we beleive {sic} yt Iesus died & rose again even so them also wch sleep in Iesus will God bring wth him – for ye Lord shal descend from heaven – & ye dead in Christ shal rise first. Then we wch are alive & remain shall be caught up together wth them in ye clouds to meet ye Lord in the air, & so shall we ever be wth ye Lord. 1 Thes. 4. Here you see the Apostle places all or hopes & comfort in ye resurrection & from that time dates or being wth Christ in heaven. And to the same purpose it is that Christ himself saith: I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go & prepare a place for you I will come again & receive you to my self, that where I am there ye may be also. Iohn 14.3. So then St Paul < insertion from f 54v > is not yet with Christ. He tells you \plainly/ that if the dead rise not or faith is vain the dead in Christ are perished, we are of all most miserable & what shall they do that are baptized for the dead 1 Cor. 15. & Christ tells you also \as plainly/ that God is not the God of ye dead & thence inferrs the resurrection because God said to Moses I am ye God of Abraham. & ye G < text from f 55r resumes >

Now according to the tenour of these texts of scripture {illeg} the first Christians placed all ye dead in Hades, that is, not in hell as we corruptly translate ye word, but in ye land of darknesse & silence as ye old testament sometimes expresseth it. Whence came ye opinion that Christ descending into Hades brought wth him from thence the Souls of ye Patriarchs. But the \Egyptians, Platonists & other {sic}/ heathens placed the souls of \{illeg} the better sort of/ dead men about their sepuchers {sic} & statues & in ye temples & in ye air & in heaven & so filled all places wch {sic} ghosts or Dæmons \wch they \usually/ called Divi & Dij/. And Athanasius by y making \Antony see/ ye soule of Ammon ascend into up to heaven, laid the foundation for introducing among \into ye Greek churches/ the Demonology of ye heathens into Christianity & the Doctrine into ye greek Churches {illeg} this heathen Philoso doctrine of Daemons, & {illeg} together wth that Popish {illeg} one of Purgatory. And this I take to be the true original of Saint worshipping Saints in ye Greek Church for Athanasius in \ye end of/ his Epistle to Marcelline concerning ye interpretation of ye Psalms \written/ in a time of [72] temptation or trial (as he calls it) & by consequence before ye death of Iulian the Apostate, has this lays down this doctrine. Let not any one, saith he, adorn the Psalms wth secular words for eloquence, nor let him endeavour to change the words, or wholy to sustitute {sic} one thing for another: but let him recite & sing them as they are written, [73] that the saints who composed those words, may knowing them to be their own, may pray together with us. And a little after. <56r> When the Devils {illeg} \see/ the words {illeg} changed they deride them but are afraid of ye words of ye saints & cannot beare them. Now In these words Athanasius teaches three things, that ye saints understand what we say, & do, that they intercede wth God for us, & that in certain forms of words there are supernatural p virtues: & these unnatural {illeg} principles are the foundation of \readily inferr/ saint-worship & charms.

|✝ What Athanasius taught in Egypt &c [See ye bakside of ye next leaf.]| < insertion from f 57v > ✝ And what Athanasius taught in Egypt soon went into those parts far Syria ffor [74] Sozomen describing how the Oracle at Antioch consulted by ye Emperor Iulian was silenced by ye reliques of yt Martyr Babylas & caused ye bones of ye Martyr to be carried out, & how ye Temple wth ye \speaking/ statue was thereupon burnt he adds: ἐδόκει δὲ τοις μὲν Χριστιανοις κατ᾽ ἄιτησιν του μάρτυρος &c The Christians thought this fire sent by God upon ye Dæmon at the prayer {sic} of the Martyr; but the Gentiles said the wickedness was done by the Christians. The truth of ye story I take to be this: that ye Heathen Priests caused the Oracles (by their juggling tricks) to speak some body to speak through ye Oracle & command away the bones of some dead man as if they were the bones of a martyr & therefore offensive & abominable to ye God: & that ye \saint worshipping/ Christians inverted the story as if the Oracle was silenced & the temple set on fire by the power & intercession of the martyr. And this sufficiently shews that the intercession of ye Saints & their knowledge of things done on earth was then in the reign of that Emperor the received opinion of the Athanasians at Antioch. < text from f 56r resumes >

Now these doctrines were no sooner started in \Egypt &/ the east but Hilary in his return \thence/ from banishment carried them with him into ye west. For in his commentary upon ye 129th Psalm, he saith,[75] It is not the nature of God but or infirmity wch wants ye intercession of Angels. ffor they are sent for \because of/ them who shall inherit salvation, God being ignorant of none of those things wch we do, but or infirmity wanting the ministry of spiritual intercession to ask & {prevail} obtein. And again upon Psal 124 he saith: Neither are the proctions {sic} of ye saints nor the guardes of ye Angels wanting to those who are willing to stand. And a little after And least you should think it \beleive th it/ a light safeguard wch is placed in ye Aposles & Prophets Patriarchs & Prophets or rather in Angels who fence about ye Church wth a certain protection it is added, And the Lord is round about his people from hence forth & for ever. But perhaps ye Protection of ye Apostles & Angels may be thought sufficient. It is true, but &c. Thus far Hilary who died four years before Athanasius, A.C. 368. You have heard \above/ how in ye year 360 he credited ye miracles done {illeg} \in ye east/ by ye reliques of martyrs at their tombs, & that at ye same time he leart {sic} the doctrine of ye protection & intercession of Saints & Angels is not much to be qu doubted. For these things went naturally hand in hand were naturally joyned together.

And that ye invocation of Saints came in at ye same time I seem to gather from Basil's \20th/ Homily upon \on/ the 40 martyrs. These are they, saith he, who obteining or region the works of Basil & Ephem Syrus who {illeg} were contempories {sic} to Athanasius & died six years after him, A.C. 378. For Basil in his 20th Homily upon ye 40th martyrs saith: These are they who obteining or region, afford \bring/ as it were \like/ certain towers afford a shelter refuge against the enemy incursion of ye enemy. —— Here is prepared a help to Christians, namely a church of martyrs, an army of triumphers, a chorus of such as praise God. You have often endeavoured, you have often laboured to find one who should pray for you; these are fourty, sending forth one voice of prayer. ffor where two or three are gathered together in ye name of ye Lord there God is; but where there shall be 40, who doubts that <57r> God is present. ὁ θλιβόμενος ἐσπι τοὺς τεσσαράκοντα καταφεύγει, ὁ ἐυφραινόμενος ἐπὶ ἀυτοὺς ἀποτρεχει ὁ μὲν ἵνα λύσιν ευρη των δυσχερων, ὁ δὲ ἵνα φυλαχθη ἁυτω τὰ χρὴστότερα, Que He that is in trouble affliction flees to these fourty, he that rejoyces runs to them: the first that he may be delivered from the evils, the last that the {sic} may continue good things may be continued to him. Here the woman praying for her sons is heard: she implores a safe return to her husband, gone a journey, & health to him when sick. Therefore with these martyrs let us power out or prayers. O holy chorus, o sacred order, o inexpugnable invincible troop, o common guardians of mankind, good companions, of thoughts careful thoughts,[76] δεήσεως συνεργὸι πρεσβύτατοι δυνα τώτατοι coadjutors of or prayers, & most powerfull mediators. And in his 26th Homily concerning the martyr Mammante: Be ye mindfull of this martyr, saith he, as many as have enjoyed him in dreams, as many as in this place have had him an assistant in praying, all those at \at/ whose he works he hath been present when invoked by name, as many as he hath brough {sic} into ye way from erring, as many as he hath restored to health, as many as have had their dead children restored by him to life, as many as have had their lives prolonged by him. And a little after \{illeg}/ At the memory |  commemoration of the martyr the whole region is moved, at his festival the whole city is transformed into joy. Neither do ye kindred of ye rich turn aside to ye sepulchers of their ancestors but all go to ye place of piety. |And in the end of the Homily, he prays that God would preserve the Church fortified with the great towers of the Martyrs.| Here you have the general practise of ye Athanasians in Asia during ye reign of {illeg} & \& Ephraim will acquaint you wth/ their like practise in Syria.[77] you may learn We beseech you, saith he, o most holy martyrs —— that you will intreat ye Lord for us miserable sinners covered over wth ye filth of negligence, that he would pour his divine grace into us. And in ye end of his discourse: Now, saith he, o blessed men & glorious martyrs of God help me a miserable sinner by your prayers that in that terrible hour I may find mercy when the secrets of hearts shall be opened. To day I am to you o most holy martyrs of Christ, as an unprofitable & unskilful cup-bearer \[vizt in administring ye Eucharist]/:[78] for I have given \a cup/ of the wine of your noble conflict to ye Sons & brothers of your faith, & I have studied with my whole affection to recreate {illeg} your the fathers & Brothers & kindred & your relations daily frequenting your table from this celebrated table <58r> of your victory furnished with all sorts of dishes & banquets dainties. ffor behold they sing & wth exultation & jubily glorify God, who hath adorned the most holy heads of your virtue with incorruptible crowns, & they stand about your reliques wishing the sacred Reliques of your conflict with great joy desiring \wishing/ to be blessed & desiring to carry back wth them the holy remedies of mind & body. Bestow therefore on them all a blessing, that as good disciples & faithfull ministers of or most benign Lord & Saviour. I also, althô weake & feeble, having by yor merits & intercession received strength, have with the whole devotion of my mind sung a hymn of your praise & glory before your holy reliques. Wherefore I beseech you stand before the throne of the divine majesty, that by your prayers I may deserve to attain salvation & enjoy eternal happiness with you.

These passages are enough to shew that saint worship was the general practise of ye East Athanasians in ye Eastern \Empire/ during ye reign of Valens. ffor {sic} if they did thus in Egypt Asia & Syria they did it much more in Egypt where they were more {sic} liberty & from whence these superstitions were propagated had their rise. ffor Palladius[79] going into Egypt in ye year 388 to visit the {illeg} monasteries telling us that how he saw \in Thebais/ ye sepulcher of one Apollonius who wth some others was martytred in Thebais in the persecution of Maximinus, he saith: The Christians built one house for them all one house where now many miracles are done. So great was the grace of ye man that he was presently heard concerning those things which for which he was prayed \invoked/; or Saviour doing him this honour. Whom also with his fellow martyrs we saw, invoking him in his sepucher {sic}. |And Ruffin speaking of the same martyrs saith that many miracles were done by them & yt # \(see ye backside)/| < insertion from f 59v > \(see ye backside foreside)/ # & yt ye wishes \desires/ & prayers of all men were received by them & their petitions granted: whether also God vouchsafed to bring him & to grant his prayers desires & prayers. So that ye miracles & invocation of these martyrs were of some standing before ye year 372 wherein Ruffin visited ye monasteries of Egypt. < text from f 58r resumes >

Gregory Nazianzen[80] in the funeral Oration upon his sister Gorgonia, invokes her wth some distrust whether she heard him or not. And \after/ the like manner he invokes ye Emperor Constantius.[81] Heare these things, saith he, O great soul of Constantius, (if the dead have any sense,) & all the pious & Christian minds \souls/ of those who held ye Empire before him, but his soul above the rest, because when he had increased \grown/ together wth ye heritage of Christ & had augmented it to ye utmost of his power, & confirmed it by length of time, so that on that account he excelled in splendor & glory all those who had at any time enjoyed ye Empire, {illeg} {illeg} he slipt through ignorance [i.e. in making Iulian Cæsar.] |{illeg} This Oration being written in ye reign of Iovian shews that ye invocation of dead men was then creeping into Asia. But because he invokes Constantius & Gorgona wth diffidence, some would| And hence Some would perswade us that the all the invocations of saints \the Dead/ to be met wth in his ye {sic} several Orations of Gregory were nothing else than oratorical flashes flourishes; wch is a mistake. Gregory in the \first/ four or five first \years/ of ye reign <60r> of Valens \either {illeg} for fear of feuding {illeg} as did not yet receive this doctrine or/ doubted of whether ye saints heard us or not but afterwards he went wth ye tide & invoked them confidently wth the rest of the Athanasians. For in his 18th Oration[82] on ye life of Cyprian he tells it for true matter of fact that Iustina \a virgin whom Cyprian before his conversion endeavoured by magic arts to enjoy/ prayed to ye Virgin Mary (& that not in vain) that she would deliver her from the danger she was in: by means of the magical arts of Cyprian. And This I take to be a fable invented by ye Monks for promoting ye worship of ye Virgin Mary, but its enough that \whilst/ Gregory beleived it, it shews that he was in earnest when in ye end of this Oration he thus invoked Cyprian. But thou, saith he, look down upon us benignly from heaven & govern or discourses & life & feed {illeg} this sacred flock, \or assist him that {illeg} in feeding them,/ as well directing {illeg} it in other things as far as may be to ye best, as draw removing grievous wolves who carp at syllables & words, & reconciling \granting/ us a more full & clear splendor of ye holy Trinity before wch {illeg} thou now standest. So again in ye end of his 21th Oration,[83] on ye prais of Athanasius, he thus invokes the soul of Athanasius. Do thou look down upon us benignly from above & govern this people a perfect adorer of ye trinity wch is understood & worshipped in ye father Son & holy ghost: & if there shall be peace preserve me in life & assist in feeding my flock, {illeg} but if the Church shall shall be in warr, withdraw me or assume me & place me wth wth your \thy/ self & such as are like you \thee/, althô it be a great \thing/ wch I request. The And much after ye same manner he invokes his own father Gregory & his friend Basil in his 2 19th & 20th Orations: the former of wch was had in the presence of Basil soon after his fathers death, A.C. 372.

{illeg} So also Gre when Gregory Nyssen invokes ye dead he does it in good earnest c

Gregory Nyssen concludes in ye life of Ephræm Syrus, telling how one a certain man in returning home from a long journey was in great danger by reason that all the ways were stopt wth ye forces of barbarians subjoyns that he only invoked Ephæm {sic} saying Holy Ephæm {sic} help me, & so escaped ye danger beyond hope being fortified by the protection of Ephræm. {illeg} & after /then\ \afterwards/ he ends his this Life with this prayer But thou [O Ephræm] standing at ye divine altar Whence you may know that \Gregory/ in ye end of this Life where he invokes Ephr the ghost of Ephræm, he was in good earnest. The same Gregory in his Oration on Theodorus the Martyr, saith: This martyr, as we beleive, the last year [that is A.C. 380] allayed the Barbarian tempest & checkt & represt the horrid war of ye fierce & cruel Scythians &c. And a little after he thus describes the super <45r> stion {sic} of the people. If any one be permitted to carry away the dust wherewith the tomb in wch ye body of ye Martyr rests is covered over, he accepts of it as a guift \favour/ & the earth as a thing of great price is gathered to be laid up. For to touch the reliques, if at any time any such prosperous fortune happen, how much that is a grant favour to be desired & wisht for & is not \worthy of/ be obteined wthout the greatest intreaty they know that have tried & obteined their desire. For they that behold the body, embrace it as if it were living, applying to applying it to their eyes, mouth, ears, & all ye instruments of their senses

as if he were whole & appeared τὴν του πρεσβεύειν ἱκεσίαν προσάγουσιν, ὡς δορυφόρον του Θεου παρακαλουντες, ὡς λαμβάνοντα τὰς δωρεὰς ὅταν ἐθέλη ἐπικαλούμενοι offering suppliant prayers that he would intercede for them invoking \calling to/ him as the Sergeant of God, invoking him as one that receives favours when ever he pleases. And at length Gregory concludes his Oration with this prayer. We want [O Theodorus] many benefits. Interced {sic} & deprecate for thy country wth or common king & Lord. ffor the country of ye martyr is the place of his passion, also & his citizens & brethren & kindred are they that keep & defend & adorn & honour him. We fear affictions {sic}, we expect dangers. The wicked Scythians are not far off being ready to make war upon us. ὡς στρατ{illeg}ιώτης, ὑπερμάχησον. ὡς μάρτυς ὑπὲρ των ὁμοδούλων χρησαι τη παρρησία, as a souldier {sic} fight for us, as a martyr use liberty of speech for us. Intreat peace that these publick assemblies may not cease that ye furious & wicked barbarian may not rage against ye temples & altars, that ye profane & wicked may not trample upon the holy things. ffor we also, that we are hitherto preserved safe & sound, do acknowledge ye benefit {illeg} \received/ of you but we pray also for safety for the time to come. And if there is need also of greater intercession & deprecation, call together the chorus of your brothers the martyrs & together with them all deprecate for us. The prayers of many just blot out ye sins of multitudes & nations. Admonish Peter, stir up Paul & Iohn the divine & beloved disciple that they may be sollicitous for ye Churches wch they have constituted for wch they have born chains, for wch they have suffered dangers & deaths, least the worship of Idols lift up the head against us, least hereses grow up like thorns in the vineyard least tares springing up choak the wheat, least any rock wanting the unctuousness of sincere dew stand up against us & render the force power of fruitfulness of the word void of root. But by the power of thy deprecation, ô most <45v> admirable man, & of that of thy companions most eminent amongst ye martyrs, & {illeg} of that of thy companions, let the commonwealth of Christians become a field of corn &c. Thus far Gregory Nyssen Gregory wrote in the year 381 & the same year in an Oration had at Constantinople in the funeral of Meletius Patriarch of Antioch, he exprest himself thus: The Bridegroom, saith he, meaning \speaking of/ Meletius, is not taken from us: he stands in the middle of us althô we do not see him. He is a Priest in the interior church & most Holy – & face to face intercedes with God for us & for the sins of the people. This Gregory \taught/ before the Bishops of ye Council of Constantinople commonly called ye second general Council, in the time of whose session Meletius died. Whence you may understand (to use ye words of a[84] Baronius) that he profest what ye Council & with it the whole Church of those parts now beleived, namely that ye saints do pour out prayers before God for us.

I have hitherto described the state of the Greek Church in the reign of Valens as to saint worship till in the times preceding this Council. And by comparing all that has been said it seems to me not only that this worship was generally received by the Athanasians before the time of this Council but also that it was received wth great ardor & affection. Nor did they only invoke the Saints as intercessors & mediators but also as Guardians Protectors, Rulers & Coadjutors. They accounted them ye bulwarks \towers/ & guards of their Cities, & the Patrons & Guardians of their persons; & pray they ascribed deliverances, victories {sic}, cures of diseases & other miraculous operations to them & to their reliques; they prayed that they would assist, defend, & govern \& prosper/ them & their Churches, & after death receive them into heaven: \all/ which is the highest degree of {illeg} worship. \I will not give it a hard name but leave the reader to consider it./ And this was the original of distributing kingdoms, Cities, towns, companies, & persons amongst the Saints so {sic} as to assigne to each their proper \Saints &/ guardians.

I might add more concerning the great vehement supertition {sic} of this age. For tho Athanasianism began not in Constantinople till after ye reign of Valens, yet before ye end of ye reign of Theodosius the devotion towards saints was there grown to such a height that in the year 394, when Theodosius was setting forth against Eugenius, he prepared to ye war, saith Ruffin,[85] not so much wth a \the power of/ arms & weapons as wth \that of/ fastings & prayers, nor & being <46r> fortified not so much wth ye {illeg} of his guards as wth pernoctation in prayer, he together wth the Priests & people went about all the places of prayer, lay & lay prostrate in hair-cloth before the tombs of the Martyrs & prayed for aid & assistance by the faithful intercession of ye martyrs. And Sozomen adds that when he was gone \marched/ seven miles from Constantinople he \prayed/ there invoke in a church wch he had built to Iohn ye Baptist, {illeg} καὶ σύμμαχον ἀυτω ἐπικαλέσεσθαι τὸν βαπτιστήν & invoked I the Baptist to assist him & called upon the Baptist to assist him in the warr. This is that Theodosius to whom the Athanasians for who for setting up Athanasianism has acquired \been honoured wth/ the name of Theodosius the great.

And indeed so great was ye devotion of this age towards the Saints that Chrysostom in his exposition on ye 114th Psalm Psalm {sic} neare ye end, said πρὸς των μαρτύρων τοὺς τάφους τὰς πόλεις συντρεχούσας, τοὺς δήμους ἀναπτομένους τω πόθω. that ye \The/ cities ran together to ye sepulchers of ye martyrs & the peoples were inflamed wth affection toward them. And hence in some of his he sometimes endeavours to check this devotion & perswade the people to let God share have a due \fit/ share of their prayers. So in Gen.19 Hom 44 he saith: When we bring what is from or selves & to this is added the intercession of saints, it profits us very much: but if we are negligent & place ye hope of or salvation in them alone, it profits us no more at all{sic} —— Knowing this beloved let us fly to ye prayers of the saints & pray that they would intercede for us: but let us not trust in their prayers alone, but also let us dispense or own rightly, as is fit. And after the same manner he exhorts ye people again in Matt. 2. Hom. 5. Therefore, saith he, let us not wth oscitancy & sloth depend upon ye merits of others. For \in truth/ the prayers & supplications of the saints have a force for us & th are powerful for us & that exceedingly, but it is then when we also desire the same thing through repentance. And al a little after. We say these things not that we would may to deny that ye saints are to be invoked prayed unto, but least we should resolve or selves into idleness & sloth, & sleeping orselves commit our concerns {illeg} wholy to ye care of others. So then the Athanasians before the end of the fourth Century had run almost all their devotion into saint-worship; being inflamed \beyond measure/ by the great cry of miracles \the example of the Monks/ & the preaching of their Clergy: In so that this devotion seems to have been now at its height. For how much the Clergy preached up this superstition may be guest by what we find <46v> in Chrysostoms \the/ Homilies \& Orations/ of Chrysostom {illeg} his Oration to ye Antiochians concerning on ye Martyrs Bernice & Prosdoce {sic}, he saith: Perhaps ye burn with not a little love towards those saints. With this ardour therefore let us fall down before their reliques let us embrace their coffins. ffor the coffins of the martyrs have {illeg} \may require/ /may obtain\ great virtue, even as the bones of the martyrs have great efficacy. Nor on the day of this festivity only but also on other days let us sit by them, let us beseech them, let us intreat them to be or Patrons. ffor they have great assurance not only when living but also when dead & much more when dead. ffor now they bear the marks of Christ & when they \shall/ shew these marks they can obtain all things of ye King. Seing therefore they have so great power & so great friendship with the King: when wh we sitting by them as it were continually & by visiting them perpetually have insinuated or selves into their acquaintance, we shal by their help obtein ye mercy of God. And much after the same manner Chrysostom exhorts the people \Antiochians/ in his Oration on Iuventinus & Maximus, & in a general Oration {sic} on ye Martyrs he has these words. But do you desire to enjoy delights? Sit at ye Sepulcher of ye Martyr, there pour out fountains of tears, afflict your soul, carry away a blessing from ye sepulcher, & enjoying his patronage in your prayers, exercise your self frequently in reading the relations of his conflicts, embrace the coffin, adhere to ye box of reliques. ffor not only ye bones of the martyrs but also their sepulchers & coffins abound wth many blessings. How much this Author promoted these superstitions you [may see further in Hom 9 on Gene 1 neare ye end, & Hom. 15 on Gen 3 neare ye end & Hom 43 & 43 on Gen        Exposit in ye first part of ye exposition on Psalm 48. Serm. on \ye/ ascension of Christi Serm] may be \further/ seen in many other a[86] places & yet the people ran it to a higher pitch then he could approve of: so that he found it requisite to exhort them to let God have a competent share of their devotion \prayers/. For their devotion towards the saints being enflamed by the cry of \their/ miracles done by them, seems to have been in this age at so much \a/ greater a pitch as then in those wch followed, as ye cry of miracles was \now/ greater.

If you desire a further \general/ description of the state of ye Church as to this worship, you may find it in ye \8th/ Book of <47r> Theodoret \(the Ecclesiastical historian)/ De curandis Græcorum affectionibus written neare the beginning of the fift Cent. A.C. 40       For he in he 8th yt book writes thus. The souls of the triumphant martyrs live now in a heavenly country amongst the heavenly Quires of Angels: and {sic} their bodies are not entombed severally in several monuments, but these the cities & villages divided & distributed amongst the cities & villages, who call them saviors of their souls & physitians of their bodies & venerate them as the Guardians of cities & Presidents of places, & by \through/ their mediation & intercessions wth God, obtein by them divine guifts. |In| their {sic} bodies therefore being \though/ cut in pieces, yet the virtue & grace remains entire continues entire; & those little reliques how little soever have the same virtue wth ye whole undivided martyr. ffor ye grace wch continues powerful & vigorous distributes guifts to them that ask, measuring its liberality by the faith of the petitioners. —— These are therefore the Captains, Princes, Guardians, Keepers of men, by who misfortunes are averted, & driven far away & the evils which the Devils bring upon us are driven far away. Afterwards mentioning Plato, Hesiod & others, he goes on thus. Now if the Poet Hesiod calls those assistants & conservers of mortals who lived of old lived holily & well, & [Plato] the best of ye Philosophers hath so far confirmed the {sic} opinion of this Poet that he accounted the sepulchers of those men to be worshipped & adored: why do you, O ye Greeks, so much accuse what we do? ffor we after the same manner call those assistants & physitians who have flourished wth illustrious piety & were slain for it : but yet we do not call them Dæmons (for be this fury from us) but we call them say they were friends of God & his faithful servants who used the greatest freedom of speech wth him & foretold the most certain coming of good things to us. —— Now that ye souls of holy men, even when they {illeg} \are be/ out of this body may take care of humane affairs. Plato [your Philosopher] affirms in ye eleventh book of Laws & so doth Socrates —— But neither Socrates nor any of the Philosophers or Kings or Emperors hath attained so great honours as we see ye martyrs of Christ have obteined: Their sepulchers are scarce known but those \the temples/ of the martyrs are beheld conspicuous & excelling in greatness & variously adorned with all sorts of ornaments & far                                the splendor of their beauty. Nor do we go to these once or twice or five times in a year but \in them/ we often celebrate festival days, & then we often sing praises & hymns \day by {illeg} day/ to ye Lord of those Martyrs: <47v> And & they that are in health pray that it may be continued to them & they that are sick that they may be cured. They that want children pray for them & ye barren weomen pray to become mothers. They that have obteined any guift pray that it may be preserved to them. They that are undertaking any journey pray that beg of them that they would be their companions in ye way & guides of their journey; & they that return safe give \come back safe return/ thanks: not not going to them as Gods but praying to them as divine men & petitioning that they would be mediators for them. {illeg} Now that those who ask faithfully obtein what they pray for, is manifest by their guifts wch are shew ye cures. ffor some hang up [in ye Temples] the images of eyes others those of feet others those of hands made of gold or silver. —— The Philosophers & Orators are forgotten, the names of Emperors & great Capitains are {sic} now so much as known: but the names of the Martyrs are more known to all then those of their most familiar friends. Yea they study to impose their names on their new born children, thence acquiring \providing/ security & protection to them. But why do I commemorate Philosophers & Emperors & Commades since the saints have abolished out of men's minds the memory of them who were every where accounted Gods? For the Temples of these are so destroyed that there remains not so much as the shape species of their shapes nor do the men of this age know the forms of their altars: but all the materials of these are assigned to ye temples of ye Martyrs. For ye Lord or God hath brought his dead men into ye temples instead of yor Gods & hath made them vain & void & vain, but hath attributed their honour to these. ffor yor Pandiums Pandiums & Diasiums & Dionysiums & other ffeasts, the solemnities of Peter & Paul & Thomas & Sergius & Marcellus & Leontia & Panteleemon & Antoninus & Mauritius & other Martyrs. —— Seeing therefore you understand what advantage {illeg} accrues by the honour done \doing honour/ to ye saints, shun, ô my friends, the error of Dæmons & by the previous light & guide of the saints take that way which leads to God. Thus far Theodoret: by all wch you may understand that Saint-worship was now of good \long/ standing & full growth.

And whilst Theodoret endeavours by the affinity between this religion & heathenism to perswade the heathens to come over to it: this opens the <48r> meaning of that crafty politician Athanasius in setting it up. For when he found himself by means of ye Councils of Sirmium Ariminum & Seleucia {illeg} baffled & deserted by all but the Monks: he contrived his religion for ye easy conversion of the heathens as far as ye by bringing into it as much of ye heathen superstitions as the temper of those times would bear name of Christianity would then bear. ffor when ye heathens saw two sorts of Christianity, the one unlike the other like their own religion: it must needs be that they would more readily embrace ye latter. And this I take to be ye true original of heathen cermonies {sic} & superstitions wch continue to this day in the Greek & Latine Churches. ffor who sees not that those superstitions came into Christianity while heathenism was yet in being? And who besides Athanasius had \either/ opportunity or authority enough to bring them in. For Gregory Nazianzen tells us that \in &/ after ye reign of Iulian Athanasius gave laws again to ye world & turned all mens minds upon him: That the Monks whatsoever pleased him was a law to ye Monks & whatsoever he disallowed they accounted forbidden, & they looked upon his opinions as the Tables of Moses, & had him in greater veneration {illeg} then became holy men: & that when he had lead such a life as he course of life yt his life mig was ye rule of episcopacy, & his opinions the law of orthodoxy he died in a good old age. Twas this authority & none but this wch could bring into the Christianity ye religion of his party, stupendious Legends monstrous Legends fals miracles, veneration of reliques, Invocation of Saints, ye doc \the doctrine of Ghosts or Dæmons/ charmes, ye doctrine of Ghosts or Dæmons, ye invocation & adoration of Saints & their \intercession/ invocation & worship & such other heathen superstitions as were then brought in. ffor had as we have shewed that he did allow these things so had he disallowed them his party would not have received them. With a word speaking he might have blasted them. In ye end of ye reign of Constantius & Iulian when his party was \had been/ baffled & broken to pieces & he was deserted & left to begin anew, when those \few/ of his party wch remained were of many opinions & knew not what to follow but depended upon his mouth as an Oracle: he was at liberty to set up what religion he pleased amongst them & after the religion <48v> he set up was once generally received among them it became as difficult for any man to innovate as 'tis now to innovate in ye Greek & Latin Churches. ffor those few innovations wch came in afterwards required a long time to creep in & met wth opposition: but these things were quickly received by all the \at first/ without any opposition of ye party. So for instance the adoration of Images came not in wthout great contention nor perhaps had ever been brought in had not the foundation of yt worship been laid in ye lifetime of Athanasius. ffor


Whether Athanasius did not for promoting his interest set on foot the practise of false miracles.

The first certain intelligence wch we have of these miracles is in ye life of Antony, \Symbol (cross in a circle surmounted by another cross) in text in passages of/ < insertion from f 61v > Symbol (cross in a circle surmounted by another cross) in text And contemporary to that is the \soon after followed/ what Ierome recites of Hilarion ye founder of ye Monks in Syria, namely that upon ye death of Antony he went into Egypt to visit his in ye l that in ye last year of Constantius \being \then/ in Egypt/ he {went into} Syria consecrated oyle & distributed it among the people to cure ye bitings of Serpents & other venomous creatures. as he had done in Syria a little before |{se}e ye former page.| < text from f 61r resumes > & the book of Hilary {illeg} written at ye same time against Constantius. where he \For in this book Hilary/ saith. [87] We owe more to your cruely {sic} O Nero Decius, Maximianus: for we have overcome the Devil by you. The holy blood of ye Martyrs is every where received. Whilst in them the Devills bellow, whilst diseases are cured, w miracles are beheld as that bodies are lifted up without chords, that weomen hang by ye feet & yet their garments do not fall down over their heads, that spirits are burnt without fire, & confess without being asked, to ye increase of faith. This Hilary wrote from ye Diocese of Antioch A.C. 360 \/ < insertion from f 61v > < text from f 61r resumes > So that miracles began in Egyp about ye same time to make a noise amongst \the Monks/ of Egypt & Syria. After But it was Egypt wch lead the dance. ffor \then as ye persecution of Maximianus {illeg} & there \had afforded them/ the greatest plenty of martyrs so they Egypti were not/ they \{illeg}/ were not content wth doing miracles at home but sent into all the Empire the reliques of their Saints & Martyrs to inflame ye whole \Roman/ world with this kind of Superstion {sic}. as \For thus/ Chrysostom a[88] in the his |an| Oration had {sic} at Antioch while Alexandria was the hea first {illeg} seat of ye East & by consequence before ye {illeg} year 381 {illeg} \informs us/ in these words. Blessed be God, \saith he/, because Marytrs come out of Egypt, out of that \mad/ Egypt wch f wch fought wth God, & & was most {illeg} out of Egypt whence were impious mouths & blasphemous tongues are had \had/ Martyrs had; not in Egypt only, not in the bordering & neighbouring region, but every where thoughout {sic} ye earth. And as in the greatest plenty of corn & provisions when the inhabitants of Cities see they have greater store than suffices for their own use they transmit it \also/ to forreign cities; as well that \they may/ shew their civility & liberality as that they besides the abundance of these things they may mutually acquire from them what they want themselves: so also the Egyptians have done as to ye Champions of religion. When they saw that by the blessing of God they had great plenty amongst themselves, they did not shut up the great gift of God within their own city but poured out the treasures of their good things into all the parts of the world: as well that they might shew their love towards the brethren at {sic} that they might affect the Lord common Lord of all wth <62r> honour & get glory to their City amongst all men, & declare it to be ye Metropolis of ye whole world. ffor if any \occasions, wch are/ frivolous & of no value, & \bounties/ wch conduce only to this life, are could procure this honour to many cities, is it it not just that that City \should be be endowed wth this prerogative of honour/ wch bestows nothing of corrupt \faiding {sic}/ & corruptible things, but men who even after death afford security to ye cities wch fall to their lot? ffor ye bodies of those {sic} saints do fortify our city more strongly than any adamantine wall & inexpugnable wall & like {illeg} high rocks prominent on all sides do not only propell ye force of those \visible/ enemies who but also subvert \& dissipate/ the treacheries of invisible Dæmons {sic} & of all ye frauds of ye Devil, as easily as a valiant man can subvert the & prostrate the plays of children. And other kind of devices made by men as walls ditches, arms, armies, & whatever is invented for ye security of ye inhabitants may be reppelled by enemies wth more & greater engines & devices: but when a city shall be fortified by the bodies of the saints, althô the enemies should spend an infinite summ of money they could not oppose to ye cities where the saints are, any device of like importance. Nor is this possession, Beloved, \only/ profitable against the treacheries of men or against the fallacies of Devils: but if the our common Lord should be angry for ye multitude of or sins, we might by laying these bodies before him make him propitious to ye city. Thus far Chrysostom \preferring Alexandria to Antioch in point of {illeg} miracle-working reliques & {illeg}/ {illeg} \who came/ /who neare\ ye end of this {sic} Oration he subjoyning: Let us compose or life according to their {illeg} suffering \enduring tolerance/ & patience, that by their prayers, after we go hence {illeg} we may see & embrace them & be placed with them in heavenly tabernacles. So then Chrysostom was the prefers Alexandria to Antioch in point of miracle-working reliques & makes that City ye \spring & / fountain from whence {illeg} \this superstition/ overflowed ye whole world. And therefore since this m this sort of miracles began to make a great cry about {sic} Antioch {illeg} in or before ye year 360, we ha & Athanasius continued Bishop of Alexandria till ye a[89] year 372 we have reason to beleive that this superstition began at Alexandria long before his death & by consequence that he promoted it. And And if you compare with the The life of Antony shews that he \Athanasius/ was for you will have reason to suspect that it was Athanasius that set <64r> on foot this humour of miracles. For {the} miracles wch he \there/ teaches to do by \making/ the signe of the cross & \saying/ certain {illeg} \wo{rds &} forms of speech/ are much of the same kind with those done by consecr dead mens bones & other \holy/ consecrated things reliques & consecrated things, Ierome tells that Hilarion ye founder of Monkery in Syria went into Egypt soon after Antonies death, in & seems to have set on foot that cry of mir these miracles wch followed thereupon in Syria upon ye sending publishing of this Life. Ierome tells us[90] that Hilarion ye founder of Monkery in Syria soon after ye death of Antony went into Egypt & there (invited perha & visited ye place of his death (invited perhaps by reading his life) & that in ye last year of Constantius he consecrated oyle & distributed it among the people to cure the biting of serpents & other venemous beasts. Which shews that this sort of miracles was then in use in Egypt. {St}Ruffin[91] The next year when Iulian the {illeg} Apostate reigned, the Gentiles in a rage fell foul upon ye miracle working sepulchers in w \in Syria &/ scattered about ye bones of Iohn ye Baptist, in Palestine at Sebast in Palestine & as they b[92] upon a signe given them by the Emperor demolished the miracle working sepulchers {sic}. Whence Gregory Nazianzen in his first Oration against Iulian \written/ in the life time of that Emperor, saith Th \speaks thus/ to him \after this manner/: {illeg} Thou hast not been afraid of the Martyrs to whom high honours & feasts are constituted; by whom Devils {sic} are driven away & disseases {sic} are cured; who {illeg} have apparitions & prædictions; whose bodies alone can do as much as their holy souls whether they be handled or honoured whose drops of blood alone & the small signes of ye passion {illeg} cross can do as much as their bodies. These thou dost not worship but contemn & despise. Now Amongst the miracle-working sepulchers was that of Iohn ye Baptist as Ierome in ye epitaph of Paula {illeg} thus mentions. [93] Paula, saith he, saw Samaria: There lay Eliseus & Abdias & Iohn ye Baptist, where she trembled being astonished at ye many miracles. ffor she saw the devils roare {sic} with various tortures & {sic} men before ye sepulchers of ye Saints howle like wolves, bark like doggs, roar like lions, hiss like serpents, bellow like bulls; others swing their heads about & touch ye ground \backward/ with their crowns, & weomen hang by the feet without their garments falling over their face. <64v> comparing this passage wth what we cited above out of Hilary it should seem that \the oriental/ miracles \were propagated out of Egypt first into Iudea where they/ began at these sepulchers, When \& then into remoter provinces. When/ therefore Iulian gave ye word, the Gentiles threw down ye sepulcher of Iohn ye Baptist among ye rest {illeg} e[94] & scattered his bones about. & then \But as they were/ gathering {sic} them up again to be to burn them, But some Monks coming from Ierusalem to pray there mixt themselves with ye ye croud \gentiles/ & crept \stole/ away with some of ye bones & gave them to the Philip the ffather of their Monastery. But he thinking them too great a treasure for himself sent {sic} them by his Deacon Iulian to Athanasius. the who, \saith Ruffin,/ [95] having received them, did by a prophetic spirit \shut them up/ before a few witnesses shut them up in the hollowed wall of a Temple Church to preserve them by a prophetic spirit for the use & benefit of posterity. So then \whilst/ Philip could think of no fitter person then Athanasius to \whom he should/ make a present of these miracle-working reliques & Athanasius hid them that that so soon as \who no doubt had heard {sic} much of their virtues hid them that after/ the reign of Iulian was over they might be produced again for ye benefit of mankind as be used again for ye benefit of mankind as before. Whence it seems obvious to collect that in ye following reigns of Iovian & Valens he promoted the superstion {sic} of such miracle-working reliques & sent for that end sent them abroad \from Alexandria/ into all the world as you have heard out of Chrysostom. And this compared wth what you have heard out of Chrysostom gives us reason to beleive \suspect/ that he was the grand patron of this superstition & |to| propagate {sic} it by sending \sent/ reliques \from Alexandria/ into all ye world.

Now after {sic} \by/ this great example was soon filled by other cities for Athanasius it \soon/ came into fashion for all cities other cities to communicate their reliqꝫs wth one another. {illeg} So the reliques of ye 40 Armenian Martyrs d[96] were dispersed \& sent/ into many regions as Basil in his Oration on these Ma & particularly to Alexandria: fr on wch occasion Athanasius composed an Oration on these Martyrs wch Gerard Vossius saw in Italy in ye Library of Cardinal Ascanius as he mentions in his commentary of ye Oration of Ephrem Syrus on the {sic} \same/ 40 martyrs. Were that Oration printed it might possibly give us further light into this matter.

Nor were the Athanasians of this age content wth \dissecting &/ distributing the bodies of the real martyrs, but daily pretended to the discovery of new bodies by dreams & revelations (such as were the bodies of Gervasius & <65r> Protasius found by S Ambrose & a[97] distributed amongst ye Bishops of Italy, France, Afric, Noricum the bones of ye Prophets Abacuc & Micheas found by Zebennus bishop of Eleutheropolis, by a divine revelation the head of Iohn ye Baptist found by two Monks, the 40 Thracian martyrs found by the Empress Pulcheria, the body of ye Prophet Zachary found by Calamer, the bodies of \St/ Stephe ye first martyr Stephen, |& of| Nicodemus & others found by Lucian ye Monk & disperst all into all ye Empire, & innumerable others of less note. the Monks going up & dow up & down wth reliques from door to door & setting up altars in all places of ye fields & high ways where such bodies were pretended to be discovered & b[98] ranging \going/ up & down with reliques from door to door \c[99] to furnish every man./ Insomuch that ye Emperors & Bishops were {illeg} soon forced to prohibit these pactises {sic} by Laws. For in the year 386 the Emperors made this Edict.

Impp The Emperors Gratian Valentinian & Theodosius {illeg} \AAA,/ to Cynegius P.P.

[100] Let no man carry a buried body to another place, let no man divide & distribute a martyr, let no man make merchandise of him &c. Dat. 4 Kal. Mart. Honorio et Evodio Coss. And the fift Council of Carthage A.C. 398 ordained this Canon. [101] Our pleasure is that ye Altars wch are every where throughout ye fields & ways set up erected {illeg} \as it were/ to ye memory of the martyrs; in wch no body or reliques of martyrs are proved {sic} to be intombed be thrown \(if it may be)/ by the Bishops to whom those places are subject. But if by reason of popular tumults this can not be done, yet let ye people be admonished not to frequent those places, so yt those who are orthodox may not follow any superstition there. And let no memory of ye martyrs be probably received unless some \a/ body be there or some certain reliques or ye original of some habitation or possession or passion b be \there/ shewn by \most/ certain tradition. ffor the Altars wch by dreams & vain \pretended/ revelations as it were of some men are every where set up are to be wholy dissallowed & rejected. Thus far that Council. And indeed so numerous were the Martyrs thus discovered & dugg up that even before the year 387 it was \g[102] Theodoret calls them many myriads, & that some/ accounted by \in/ that age \this/ ye first resurrection of ye Saints. So Am To wch opinion S. Ambrose added in his Oration in his [103] Oration to ye people concerning ye Martyrs Protasius & Gervasius A.C. 387 thus alludes Non immerito pleriqꝫ hanc martyrum resurrectionem {illeg} Many, saith he, do not unfitly call this the <65v> resurrection of ye martyrs. Yet let me see whether certain martyrs be risen to themselves or to us. Ye {illeg} have known, {illeg} or rather ye have seen many purged by the freed from ye Devil &c.

Now what a noise \of miracles/ so great a number of miracle working reliques must {illeg} made {sic} \at that time/ in ye Empire is scarce may be learnt out of almost all ye writers of that age & particularly out of ye 2d Oration of Chrysostom concerning the martyr Babylas; had \written/ at Antioch in ye [20th year {illeg} current after ye silencing of ye Oracle of Iulian by ye bones of that martyr {illeg} (as is mentioned in ye Oration] b[104] year 382. ffor in this Oration speaking of ye Miracles of Christ & his Apostles, he saith All wch if any man affirm to be \scarce {illeg} credible/ delusions, certainly those things wch are now beheld are more than enough to stop his blasphemous mouth & shame it & check his unbridled tongue. ffor there is no region nor people nor city of this or world where these new & surprising miracles are not celebrated the common discourse: wch if they were {fig}ments they could not come into so great an admiration of men. And a little after. The miracles wch are daily done by ye martyrs do sufficiently confirm or discourse, a great multitude of people flocking abundantly together to see them. Well therefore did Ambrose say that [105] ye miracles of ye Apostolic age were now revived. But that you may have some kind of estimate of their prodigious number b[106] D. Aug Augustin tells you that in his church at Hippo wthin the space of less than two years there were delivered 70 \in to be read to ye people, almost seventy/ books of ye miracles done b in his Church at Hippo by ye a small parcel of ye reliques of ye first Martyr Stephen, besides many \other/ books wch were not written but not then given in. And th And that at Calama a neighbouring City where in a little pla where they began sooner to give in the \such/ books of miracles done by another parcel of S. Stephens reliques the number of books was incredibly greater. Two of these books are extant d[107] in some editions of D. Austins works & contein seventeen miracles: at wch rate ye seventy must contein above 500.

Now for what end Athanasius set on foot these miracles is manifest from hence that they were abetted \generally/ pactised {sic} & promoted by {illeg} ye Athanasians & opposed by their enemies. For Ierome \in his second Epistle against Vigilantius/ tells us that they were opposed by all the Eunomians. [108] |Do| You laugh at ye reliques of ye <63r> And as ye noise of reliques & miracles was greater in this then in any following age so the superstition towards them seems to have been greater. And \yt/ Cassian[109] mentions how one of the Egyptian Abbots heard ye Devil openly confessing that he had published the impiety of ye sacrilegous opinion by Arius & Eunomius: & further tells this story. [110] When, saith he, a certain Eunomian who foll endeavoured by the art of disputing to subvert the sincerity of the catholic faith & had already deceived a great multitude of men: the catholicks being greatly troubled at ye ruin of so great |a| subversion intreated Macarius to come & free the simplicity of all Egypt from the shipwrack of infidelity. When therefore the heretick set upon him by ye art of disputing & would have draw {sic} him away as an ignorant person, wth ye thor Aristotelian thorns: Macarius calling off his talking much talkativeness with Apostolick brevity, said, The kingdom of God consists not in speech but in power. Let us go to ye sepulchers & invoke ye name of ye Lord over ye first dead man we shall meet wth, & as it is written, shew or faith by or works. The Eunomian pretended to go ye next day but fled & Macarius went wth y all the delud seduced people & rai in their presence raised one to life one of the Mummies who had lived many ages before in the reign of under ye most ancient Kings of Egypt & after some discourse wth him commanded him to sleep again.

These & such like stories sufficiently open the designe of Athanasius & his party in setting on foot this humour of pretending to miracles. They found by experience yt their opinions were not to be propagated by disputing & arguing, & therefore a[111] gave out that their adversaries were crafty people & cunning disputants & their own party \simple/ well meaning men, & therefore imposed b[112] this law upon the Monks that they should not dispute about ye Trinity. Thus they left ye success of their cause to ye working of miracles & spreading of Monkery.


Whether Athanasius did not for promoting his interest set on foot the way of writing lying \fabulous/ Legends, & propagate the superstition of Monkery.

That the way of writing feigned \fals/ legends began in ye reign latter end of ye reign of Constantius or soon after is manifest by the fabulous lives of Antony, Paul, Hilarion, Martin & \Pachomius, Simeon & many/ others writ by Athanasius, Ierom, \Ruffin, Palladius/ Severus Palladius Theodoret, & other {sic} in y \authors whose writings of this kind are/ Collected {illeg} by of Rosweydus. The life of Antony was translated into Latine by Evagrius Bishop of Antioch & by Ierome & dispers soon dispersed all over the world. See \Hervetus first found & published one/ of the latine translations |A.C.| 1555 & at length Iohn Meursius {sic} {illeg} found it |in| greek & published it {illeg} |A.C.| 1616. {illeg} Hierome tells us[113] that Marcella learnt of ye Presbyters of Alexandria & of Athanasius & Peter at Rome the life of Antony then living & ye discipline of the Monasteries in Thebais. Whence Baronius tell concludes that Athanasius wrote ye life of Antony was written by Athanasius before that time \they came to Rome./ But this is a mistake. ffor Ierome does not say that Marcella read ye life of Antony \or that others read it to her/, but that she learnt it of the Presbyters of Alexandria & of Athanasius & Peter, that is by discoursing them \she learnt his manner of life by/ their discourses. {illeg} Athanasius continued this life in an uniform stile to ye death of Antony & therefore he wrote it after his death, & by cons wch happened in the beginning of the year 358. \& in the preface mentions that the Monks after his death \of Syria/ desired him to write how {Antony} lived & died {illeg} \& in the bo{dy of} the histor{y writes that Antony} he pr{edicted}/ the persecuti{on of} the Churches by C under {Con}stantius two y{ears} before it cam{e to} passe, wch pe{rse}cution {illeg} con{tinu}ed {illeg} t{hen} when Athana{sius} wrote this life. He wrote it t{here}fore before \after/ t{he} death of Ant{ony} & \before/ ye death {of Con}stantius, th{at is,} between the y{ears} 358 & 362./ < insertion from f 80v > to write how Antony lived & dyed & in the body of the History writes that Antony predicted the persecution of the Church under Constantius two years before it came to pass: wch persecution continued then when Athanasius wrote this life. He wrote it therefore after the death of Antony & before the death of Constantius {sic}, that is, between the years 358 & 362. < text from f 80r resumes > |And| this {sic} period concurring wth ye Councils of Sirmium \Sirmium/ Ariminum & Seleucia, I conceive that |in| immediately after \the time of those C/ those Councils, \or immediately after/ Athanasius finding himself reduced to ye utmost desperation & seing no hopes of recovery by unlesse by extraordinary practises, set himself upon all kind of sophistry & began with writing this life. so that we may reccon it {sic} life written in ye year 358 or beginning of ye year following \or 359 the Monks of Syria requesting it soon after Antonies death./

Now this life is full of prodigious {relat} stories such as are the devil's appearing \frequently/ to Antony in several shapes & \bignesses &/ talking with him & afflicting him & struggling with him & sometimes multitudes of devils appearing in various shapes. Christ's appearing in ye form of light to Antony & speaking to him. Antony's {sic} remaining as fresh & plump after long fasting as if he had not fasted, his curing diseases, casting out devils, escaping Crocodiles by prayer, sca frighting away devils \& curing demoniacks/ by the signe of the crosse, seing the soul of Ammon ascend up to heaven, having revelations, foretelling things being \himself/ lifted up into ye air, & having revelations & by a spirit of prophesy foretelling things. These miracles saith Athanasius were done by Antony by virtue of the promise of Christ tha that if we have faith like <81r> a grain of mustard seed we may remove mountains & nothing shall be impossible to us, & that if we ask we shall receive. Go, saith he, cure ye sick, cast out devils, freely ye have received, freely give.

|This life – – – – – ‡| < insertion from f 80v > || This Life is all allowed genuine by Baronius Bellarmin & ye the Roman catholicks in general: nor do I hear it questioned by any Protestants of note. But yet because I have met wth one or two who cannot beleive that so holy & judicious a man as Athanasius would write such \monstrous & incredible &/ things as are in this life, & therefore endeavour to were willing to suspect that ye life now extant is the same wth that wch Athanasius wrote I will {illeg} consider their arguments. ffor they are such as if duly considered do rather make for it & prove it to be genuine. < text from f 81r resumes >

But these miracles seeming to some incredible they would cannot beleive that so holy a man as Athanasius would write them. And therefore they would perswade endeavour to render this life of Antony now extant suspected as if it were not the same wth that wch Athanasius wrote, {But the} & for this end they b but ye objections they make against it are such yt as if duly considered do pro make for it & prove it to be genuine. \ffor/ first {sic}, say they, Antonius was learned whereas this Life makes him ignorant of letters. I answer that \tho antiquity magnified him yet/ he was never celebrated for any other learning then what he had wthout reading. None of ye ancients affirm that he could read but some deliver affirm ye contrary. Socrates[114] tells us that when a certain Philosopher asked Antony how he could live being destitute of ye solace of books, Antony answered that his book was the nature of things: \#/ < insertion from f 80v > # Cassian[115] who had {illeg} conver relates from ye Monks of Egypt \almost the same thing wth some varity of circumstance/ but spea{ks o}f two Philosophers who despised Antony as unskilful & {illeg} void of letters. < text from f 81r resumes > Sozomen say D. Austin[116] saith that \it was/ the popular fame yt Antony wthout any knowledge of letters had ye scriptures by heart. And Sozomen that Antony neither knew letters nor valued them but commended a good intellect as being older then letters & the inventer of them. All \Almost all/ which was taken out of ye life of Antony now extant. For there it is said that Antony him a[117] would not learn letters \nor {illeg} them,/ but \ but yet/ was {illeg} so attentive to reading that nothing of those things wch were written slipt out of his memory, but he retained all things, & as for ye rest meditation was to him instead of books. And c[118] when certain Philosophers thought to deride him for his ignorance of letters he asked them wch was oldest, the mind or letters & which was ye cause of ye other? to wch when they replied that ye mind was older then letters & ye inventer of them, he answered that he therefore who has a sound mind has no need of letters. All this you may find in

Another objection is those præcepts of {illeg} a monastick life wch Gregory Nazianzen saith were written by Athanasius in ye life of Antony, are not found in ye life now extant. But this objection is lame on both leggs. ffor Gregory s \speaks of no precept. His/ words are that Athanasius wrote ye life of Antony's life, as a law of monastick life, in ye form of a narration. And this narration you have \at large/ in the Life of An \of Antony/ now extant {sic}, where Athanasius relates two speeches \of Antony/ to the Monks instructing them how upon all occasions they should behave themselves: wch speeches take up {sic} one third part of this {sic} Life.

A third objection is that

{illeg} /Thirdly\ they object that ye life of Antony now extant wants all that {illeg} {betwe}en Antony & Paul. & has <77r> many thing fabulous & incredible things of which so pious & judicious a man as Athanasius would not write. But if there be any thing in this objection we must reject ye Gospels|: because some want what others have.| Athanasius tells us that he omitted in ye preface tells us that he wrote but a small part of what Antony {sic} did: |& what therefore if he omitted ye story of Paul? Or rather what| & if I am mistaken if ye whole story of Paul be not a Romance of a later date? Before Ierome wrote his life ye monks told such monstrous incredible stories of him as Ierome himself was ashamed of, & made him a man hairy \all over/ to ye feet like a beast. Ierome so represents him a man \that he was/ unknown to all ye world till Antony found him \& that he found time no man saw him but Antony & that he found him/ by divine revelation & by the direction of a Centaur & of a Satyr, which Satyr had a rational soul & discoursed wth Antony in his own language & beleived in Iesus Christ. & |so| that before you can beleive that there was such a man as Paul, you must beleive that Antony found him after this miraculous manner. |Well therefore did Ieromes contemporaries deride him, as a[119] he himself complains, for writing the life of a {illeg} who never {illeg}|

In the last place they object that \the life now extant conteins/ many fabulous things & incredible things, wch so pious & judicious a man as Athanasius would not write. But these I take |it| to be \rather/ an argument that Athanasius did write them because they are {sic} of ye same kind wth other things wch Athanasius then \then/ wrote. And if we will beleive antiquity, Athanasius did really write them. For Socrates tells affirms it in these words.[120] A What kind of man Antony was in the wildernesse who openly contested wth Devils, \detecting/ discovering all their craft & treachery, & how he did many prodigies & miracles is superfluous for me to commemorate: for Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria has handled that argument already, having written a peculiar book concerning his life. And Sozomen \saith/ that [121] Paulus simplex one of Antonies disciples was famous for miracles, & |yt| for vexing & driving away ye Devil |he| was above even Antony himself. \‡ And Ruffin &c/[122] < insertion from f 78v > ‡ And Ruffin that Antony living in the wilderness & conversing only wth Beasts & obteinin having frequent triumphs over the Devils, he pleased God above all mortals, & left ye Moncks notable examples of his institution: {illeg} the telling of all wch was prevented by that book wch had {sic} |been| written by Athanasius & |was| published also in Latin. Gregory Nazianzē in his first Apology was [123] Oration against Iulian written in ye reign of Iovian affirms that ye Devils tremble at ye naming of Christ & yt ye force of this name is not diminished by the wickedness of ye person who pronounces it, & yt ye Emperor Iulian being set upon by Devils wth strange noises & appearances, frighted away the Devils once & again by the signe of the Crosse. And whence I pray had ye wisest of the party these notions so early f but from ye life of Ath Antony? D. Augustin < text from f 77r resumes > And D. Austin[124] tells us that when Pontitianus first acquainted him with the life of Antony, he \& those with him/ were astonished hearing the most strongly attested miracles done so lately in ye Church. We all wondred, saith he, both we because they were so great, & Pontianus because we had not heard of them before. He calls these miracles most strongly attested because Athanasius saith in ye this life saith, he wrote them according to ye relations of the Moncks. [125] One of ye most incredible stories in this life is that Athanasius \Antony/ saw the soul of Ammon, immediately after his death, carried up into heaven by angels: & Socrates[126] tells us expresly that this story was told by Athanasius in the life of Antony. He tells <78r> also how Ammon was carried over the river Lycus by Angels & Palladius in ye life of Ammon relating both these stories tells us that Athanasius wrote them in ye life of Antony. Sozomen also tells them both almost in the same words in wch you may find them in the life of Antony now extant, so that you may be sure he had them from thence. He saith {sic} indeed that these things were related by those who conversed familiarly wth Antony & Ammon: but he means that they were related by them not to himself who lived long after their death, but to Athanasius who wrote \these/ (as he saith in the Preface) by their relations \in the Preface saith he wrote them by the relation of those men/ & from whose book Sozomen reported them. To the Amongst the most incredible parts of Antony's life may be also recconed his having divine divine visions & prophesies foretelling things as a Prophet. And yet Chrysostome assures us that Athanasius wrote such things. in that life. His words are: [127] Antony was both worthy of ye Vision of God & lead such a life as the laws of Christ require. This any man will easily know who shall read that book wch conteins the {sic} history of his life: in wch also he shall see Prophesy shining forth. For he prophesied manifestly of those whom ye Arian pest invaded; & \taught/ how great a {illeg} tempest & confusion hung over the churches from them; God revealing these things & setting all things in a figure before his eyes. Qu Which certainly is a principal document in document of ye catholick faith, for seing none of ye Hereticks can be shewn to be such a man. But least you should seem to heare these things from me, you shall rather by reading the book learn all things accurately, that you may thence become receive the greatest incitements to Philosophy. But I pray that we may not only meditate on those what th the things written therein, but also imitate what is there described exprest. Thus far Chrysostom, & if you please to look into \what here {sic} speaks of is in/ ye life of Antony now extant. you will find in it at large what Chrysostom here speaks of

So then Athanasius wrote such a life as that now {sic} \extant/ & what he ha wrote being {sic} found in this life now extant we have no reason to doubt of its being genuine. Antiquity tells us of no other life of Antony besides that written by Athanasius. Tis certain that ye way of writing Ecclesiastical Romances did begin in that age & no man besides Athanasius had authority enough to break <66r> the ice in this way of writing. Antiquity tells us not of any other life of Antony besides that written by Athanasius & this life now extant is an contin entire piece written in his stile. Sozomen tells us many things of Antony[128] as that he was \he received letters from Constantine the great,/ lost his parents while in his youth, th distributed his fathers lands amongst his townsmen, & gave ye rest of his goods to ye poor, converst wth all wise men & imitated what was best in each, ate only bread & salt & drank only water, {illeg} dined at sunset, often fasted two days or more, often watched all night, slept on a matt & frequently on ye bare ground, never annointed nor bathed himself nor saw himself naked, \was meek, prudent, pleasant/ foreknew things \but placed disswaded ye monks from affecting it/, spent his {illeg} time in working, came often to cit ye cities to defend ye innocent injured, interced {sic} for them wth \ye/ Presidents & great men who esteemed him & desired delighted to see & hear him, but immediately returned to ye wilderness saying that as fishes cannot live on dry land so monks in cities lose their virtue: all wch you may find in ye life of Antony now extant. So that I cannot see ye least reason to doubt of its being genuine Bellarmin Baronius & the rest of ye Roman Church receive it: & 'tis nothing but a wrong notion of Athanasius wch has made some of ye Protestants doubt of it.

Now the consequences of this life were these.

ffirst it \did/ set all the Monks upon an humour of of pretending to miracles: {illeg} so that ye whole world presently rang wth stories of this kind. And \hence/ it came to passe that ye lives of \almost/ all ye first monk & most eminent Monks were filled wth apparitions: of Devils, & other {pro} miraculous cures {sic} of diseases, \prophesies/ & other prodigious relations: as you may see in the Collection of Rosweydus. And this was ye original of those ecclesiastical Legends & Romances wch are still use {sic} in ye Church of Rome & from wch ye name of Romances seems to have been taken.

Secondly the superstitious or to speak more truly the magical use of the signe of ye Cross was hereby set on foot & propagated all over ye East. In the western Churches it was in use before. ffor they began in \before/ |in| ye time of Tertullian \or before/ to be tainted wth ye superstitions of the Montanists. Athanasius in his exile learnt it there & makes Antony teach how by this signe th \now turning it into an inchantment {sic} makes Antony/ in a large discourse to ye Monks teach them how by this signe they may drive away the Devil & dissolve all kinds of witch inchan inchantments & witchcraft. |And this I like to be the original of ye Greek & Latine Church using it for this end.|

Thirdly by this life Athanasius propagated Monkery <67r> Thirdly by writing this life Athanasius fixt ye obliged ye Monks & fixt them to his interest. ffor he makes Antony exhort ym {sic} Monks against Arianism as \the religion of Constantius as Arian &/ Antichristian & prophesy against it by divine inspiration predicting that it should overflow the world.

Fourthly by this life Athanasius propagated Monkery & made it overflow the Roman world like a torrent. For Athanasius in the end of this life commanded ye Monks that they should read it to their brethren that is to all Christians & not only to them but |also| to the heathens to convert them by means of ye miracles related therein. And thus this life going speedily \into/ all over the Empire, only struck its hearers wth admiration & made many desire to imitate Antony. – – – <67Ar> & made it overflow ye Roman world like a torrent. ffor this life going into all ye Empire struck the homousians wth admiration & made many of them desire to imitate Antony; the especially when they heard that ye guift of miracles continued still amongst ye his successors.

All The Clergy also by this means soon became Monks. ffor it grew \besides that divers of them {sic} clergy became monks \after they were clergy men/ it grew quickly/ into custome to elect Clergyme Deacons Presbyters & Bishops out of this order of men as the most |holy, & the p[129] Emperors & q[130] Pope commanded that they should be elected the thence| holy \& those who were clergimen before readily became and Monks/: so that hence forward all the fame \{illeg}/ {illeg} fathers \ffathers & Bishops/ of the Church (\Athanasius/ Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen \Gregory Nyssen,/ \Epiphanius/ Chrysostom, \Hilary Eusebius Vercelensis/ Ambrose, Ierome \Ierome, Ruffin/ Austin \Martin,/ &c the rest) were Monks & propagated \many of them (as Basil, Nazianzen, Eusebius Vercellensis, Ambrose Martin Augustin ye founders of Monkery in Asia, Thrace, Italy, Lombardy, France, Afric)/ had monasteries out of wch they filled their Churches wth Moncks \And this was the original of the Cælibacy of the Priests Whence also ye {illeg} imperialt[131] laws distinguished the Monks from ye laity & recconed them one body wth ye Clergy/ The habit of ye Monks was of a dark dusty \russet or black/ colour; & thence the Clergy as many as were Monks wore black, wch has been their colour ever since. ffor the b[132] clergy before this ti wore garments of \any/ other colours {illeg} \like ye people./ This body of men was at first two headed horned headed \fold/, Antony planting one head part body in Egypt under the c headed by the Archbishop \& Clergy/ of Alexandria, & Hilarion planting another in Syria headed by the Archbishop & Clergy of Antioch. \Both these bodies began to be numerous a[133] in the reign of Constantius/ & from these two fountains Monkery overspread \overflowed/ ye world overflowed the world, but yet became \not/ of a long time so numerous in other regions as in these.

That ffor {illeg}

|Now by propagating this order of men #| < insertion from f 67r > # Now by \propagating {sic}/ this order of men Athanasius triumphed over all his enemies as [134] Sozomen tells you in these words. That ye opinion of Apollinaris & Eunomius prevailed not ….. is chiefly to be ascribed to ye Monks. For as many as followed the monastick life of \philosophy/ in Syria & Cappadocia & the Provinces round about, did stifly adhere to ye Nicene Decrees {sic}. Certainly their heresies were embraced by almost all men throughout all ye Provinces of ye East …. But that happened to them wch had before happened to ye Arians. ffor ye people of |in| those regions, while they admired the monks exceedingly for their vertue & works, thought that they were of the right opinion & avoyded those who tho taught \beleived/ otherwise as contaminated with adulterate opinions: after the manner that the Egyptians formerly by following the doctrine of their Monks did stoutly resist the Arians. So then Monkery & homousianism grew up together: taking root first in Egypt & soon after in Syria & thence overspreading ye whole East. The greatest strength of Athanasius & his predecessor Alexander was {illeg} in Egypt: & yet in ye beginning was scarce greater there then in other places, being every where almost none at all. ffor in the beginning Alexander in d[135] a letter to his namesake of Byzantium complained that seditions & persecutions were daily stirred up against him, & yt by means of ye weomen he was summoned before ye Iudges. And at ye same time when Hosius was sent by Constantine to compose ye controversy, Arius wrote back to ye Emperor that the multitude were on his side & the Emperor in his a \satyrical letter written thereupon to all ye Empire/ very angry answer \again Letter written by to ye Empire & Arius/ makes mention wth {illeg} denying it \by way of concession. \For he replies that he would therefore come & make up the other party.// His words are these. The multitude [saith he \Arius/] is on or side. Therefore I {illeg} a little one, will come neare that I may be a spectator of mad warrs. I my self, I say, will come neare who am used to {illeg} \quiet/ the warres of mad men. Behold again [he saith] I come suppliant & being powerfull in arms I will not fight but being fortified wth the faith of Christ will cure you & others &c. Thus Constantine makes Arius speak & a little after repeating \Arius/ his boasting of the multitude, he subjoyns that \some of/ ye Sibylls predicted it should be so in Libya: And \&/ after a recital of ye prophesy subjoyns. What therefore, o thou most crafty man, where \in what/ part of <67Av> the world dost thou confess thy self to be in? Namely there [i.e. in Libya] for I have the letters which thou wrotest to me wth a frantick pen in wch thou affirmest that all the people of Libya assent to thee {illeg} unto salvation. Thus far Constantine a most unexceptionable witness. And the same thing is insinuated by {illeg} others \affirmed hinted by others/ of ye most ancient writers Gregory Nazanzen as by Severus,[136] where speaking of ye peace of ye Churches \from persecution/ restored to ye Church by Constantine from ye heathen persecutions; he saith, g[137] that by that peace a far more {illeg} fearful danger was begotten to all ye Churches. For then ye heresy of Arius \brake forth/ totumqꝫ orbim invuto, errore turbaverat, & by bringing in error troubled ye whole world, that is, in ye time \reign/ of Constantine. But {sic} Gregory Nazianen is an early one of ye first & most authentic & faithful writers more plain Arius, saith he, \{illeg}/ beginning at ye city of Alexandria, where he had \& there/ there inventing his pestilent opinion, & then like a flame in a feild from a little spark τὸ πολὺ της ὀικουμένης ἐπιδραμὼν overrunning a great part of ye world, is opprest by or fathers & that pi{illeg} number of \which/ then assembled {sic} at Nice & & defined theology by certain limits & words. In how large a sense τὸ πολὺ may be here taken by Gregory {illeg} may be gathered from hence that \h[138] in another place/ he calls ye same Christians under Constantius \men/ when in the reign of Constantius they {illeg} be were ye whole Christian world τὸ πολὺ της ἐκκλησίας (Orat. 21 in laud. Basil And {illeg} in how large a sense he did really take it, {is} to be understood by a passage in k[139] his 21th Oration; where when he had told how Athanasius was made Bishop of Alexandria he thus goes on. Neither can I sufficiently tell whether he received this\sacred/ dignity as a reward of his vertue or as the fountain & life of ye Ch{urch.} For it was requisite that ye Church languishing wth ye thirst of truth, & should like Ismael be refreshed wth drink, or like Helias when the earth was dried for want of rain, be refreshed out of ye brook; & breathing a little, be recalled to life & left a seed to Israel least we should become {sic} like Sodom & Gomorra {sic} – – – – – – For this reason, when we were cast down a horn of Salvation was raised up to us & a corner stone binding us to it self & to one another was opportunely cast in: – – – – – – Thus was Athanasius & for these rea{sons} was he exalted to ye throne of Mark \{illeg} of all other people/ by the voice of all ye people & not according to ye wicked manner wch since obtains nor by sla{illeg}ters & tyranny, but Apostolically & spiritually, exalted to the throne of Mark. Thus far Gregory who as to ye general state of ye Ch{urch} of that time could not be mistaken. ffor he was born before ye Council of Nice & \conversed much wth/ his father who with whom he much conversed and /who\ was made Bishop of Nazianzum two years after yt Council of Nice & continued 45 years in that Bishopric & then died an hundred years old.

But whereas Gregory saith that Athanasius was made Bishop {by} the voice of all the people, {illeg} being he seems in this \particular/ to have followed ye letter of ye Council of Alexandria {illeg} where the \where Athanasius & his/ {illeg} B{ishops} say that all the multitude & all the people of ye catholick Chu{rch} coming together as it w [that is all the {illeg} homousian people \whom they accounted catholick/] coming <75v> together as it were wth one soul & body, [cried out wth a great clamorous noise requesting \desiring/ that Athanasius should be made Bishop of the Church. This they \requested/ of Christ by a publick vote & this they] adjured us thus for many days & nights together, {illeg} \to make Athanasius Bishop/ whilst neither they departed from the Church nor gave us leave to depart. Thus they So then the catholicks of Alexandria \at that time/ were not so many at that time that very great & very populous city Alexandria \wch had in it twelve parishes/ were at that time not so many but that one Church would be (such a little Churches as these bui {illeg} could build \one of those little parochial Churches they built/ in ye reign of Licinius) was big enough to hold them all & afford them room be it {illeg} to eat & drink & sleep for many days together. |You have heard above|

Now whilst the Bishops resisted the \clamorous/ people for many days together & the people would not let them go out of ye Church till they had ordained Athanasius, its manifest that he got ye bishopric by sedition & violence. His {sic} was {illeg} \ordination/ was also contrary to ye canons of that Church & therefore it illegal. ffor he was but a Presbi Deacon & ye Canon, ordained by Mark ye Evangelist & \constantly/ observed till that time, were that there should be 12 Presbyters of that Church & that out of them ye Bishop should be always elected that the out of Eusebius & {illeg} Socrates yt ye Egyptians were now at variance and in vehement \in furious & implacable {illeg}/ heats about ye word homousios. Eusebius tells us that the Emperor Constantine to quiet these heats called both parties \before him, forbare \all/ anger,/ gave them good words \as fathers & Prophets,/ & honoured them with gifts & continued in an epistle to ye Egyptian ratified ye Nicene decree exhorting them to peace. By wch its manifest that ye Egyptian Bishops who |then| opposed that decree were {illeg} too numerous \& formidable/ to be dealt with roughly.

But now Athanasius being made Bishop, & having formerly been one of Antonies disciples in ye wilderness: he made bishops in Egypt a[140] out of ye Monks during all ye reign of Constantine Constantius & Valens \& by the {sic} \credit &/ interest {illeg} \wch they had/ with ye people \grew {illeg} by degrees/ at length overcame {illeg}/. For he had been fomerly {sic} of ye one of Antonies disciples in the wilderness \as he himself affirms in the life of Antony/ & this begat that great love & friendship wch was between him \{illeg}/ & Antony, & fixt ye order of ye Monks to his interest & him to theirs.

< text from f 67Ar resumes >

Some are of opinion that the {sic} Monks of this age were most holy men: but this is a great prejudice & such a prejudice as judicious men who have read & considered {illeg} their lives can scarce fall into. ffor they seeme to me to have been ye most unchast & superstitious part of mankind as well in this first age as in all following ages. For it was a general maxim \notion/ amongst them a[141] that after any man became a Monk he found himself more tempted by the Devil to lust then before & those who went furthest into ye wilderness & profest Monkery most stricktly were most tempted, \the Devil (as they imagined) tempting them \most when it was/ to divert them from the best purpose/. So that to turn a Monk was to run into such temptation as Christ has taught us to pray that God would not lead us into. The For lust by a violent prohibition \being force forcibly restrained restrained/ & by struggling wth it is always inflamed. The way to be chast is to \not to contend & struggle with unchast thoughts but to decline them {illeg}/ keep the mind imployed about other things: for he that's always thinking of chastity will be always thinking of weomen & to struggle \every contest/ wth unchast thoughts is to \will/ leave {sic} such deep impressions upon the mind as \shall/ make {sic} those thoughts \apt to/ return more frequently. ffasting \duly/ is one of ye moral <75r> vertues & has its vitious extreames like all the rest. \If duly exercised 'tis temperance & its extremes are intemperance./ To pamper ye body enflames lust & makes it lesse active & fit for use. \And on the other hand/ To macerate it \by fasting & watching/ beyond measure does ye same thing. It does not only render ye body feeble & unfit for use but also enflames it \& invigorates/ lustful thoughts. ffor \at length/ it invigorates ye imagination & brings \The want of sleep & due refreshment brings men disorders the imagination & \at length/ brings/ men to a sort of distraction \& madnesse/ so as to make them think they have visions of weomen conversing with 'em & sitting upon their knees & think they really see \& touch/ them {sic} & heare them {sic} talk. \/ |✝See ye backside of ye next page| < insertion from f 76v > \See ye leaf before./T as I gather from what the Monks have recorded from their own experience. ffor Cas {illeg}anus in Collat. 22 {illeg}. 2 Questionem proponi \propounds this Question/ Cur interdum remissius jejunantes levioribus carnis {illeg}culeis titillentur & nonnunquam districtius abstinentes afflicto exhaustoqꝫ corpore incentivis acr{illeg}ribus urgeantur ita ut experge facti reperiant se humorum naturalium {qu}estione respersos. Et subjugat quod \And subjoyns/ hujus in festationis triplicem causam Monachorum majores prodidere. And in Collat 2 cap. 17 |he| affirms {sic} quod gravius se periclitatum somni cibiqꝫ fastidio quam soporis et gastrimargiæ colluctatione persensit. Et quod perniciosius continentia immoderata quam saturitas remissa supplantat. And {sic} Evagrus Palladij Magister in lib. \a monk {illeg} the Master of Palladius, in his book/ de octo vitiosis cogitationibus ita scribit \writes thus/ Libidinis Dæmon, inquit, variorum corporum desiderio animas inflammat, acriusqꝫ eos qui continentiæ student, urget: quo nimirum tanquam frustra laborantes institutum suum abrumpant. Atqꝫ animam inficiens, et dicere et rursus audire verba facit non secus ac si res ipsa cerneretur ac præsto esset. And this I take to be one of the reasons why {illeg} the first Monks who fasted most were most frighted wth apparitions of Devils as Cassian affirms. Collat. 7. cap 23. < text from f 75r resumes > These are the extremes & betw of intemperance & between these {illeg} such a moderate degree of fasting as best suits with every mans body so as to k wthout unfitting it for use to keep down lust, is the due mean of temperance. ffor my part I have not met with more \more uncleannesse &/ greater arguments of unchast {sic} \minds/ in any sort of people then in the {illeg} lives of the t[142] first Monks: collected \collected/ \a collection of wch has been published/ by Rosweydus. |For what else mean their {illeg} doctrine that its better to contend with & vanquish unchast thoughts then not to have them, their frequent visions of naked weomen, their digging up the bodies of dead weomen their lust wth w{ch} they burned in lust, their lusting after even after passive Sodomy & their relating these & other such histories wthout blus{hing}|

Then for superstition they were eminent. ffor they placed what else is their placing so much of religion in bodily exercises; {illeg} as in extravagant fasting; in torturing their bodies by irons, ulcers, sordid habitations & ye like, in standing daily {sic} upon a pillar or in some other strange posture to be seen of men; in using ye signe of ye cross, holy water & \dead mens bones, holy oyle & water, consecrated oyle &/ other consecrated things to do supernatural operations; in saying a certain number of prayers every day \in auricular confession & pennances or penal pennances & {illeg}/ & in praying by number. ffor Pachomius in the life time of Antony Pachomius one of his disciples founding many monasteries instituted that they (for he was ye first founder of monastical societies) instituted yt they should \say/ 12 prayers in the morning, 12 at noon & 12 at night & 3 at nine at nine a clock \& pretended he did it by the direction of an Angel wch conversed wth him, & dictated the laws wch he prescribed to his monasteries/. Others said a greater number. {illeg} So Moses said 50 And that they measured their holinesse by ye number of prayers is manifest by the \a/ story wch Palladius tells of Paul ye Abbot.[143] It was this man's exercise, saith he, to pray continually. He had 300 prayers exprest & so many stones in his bosom & at every prayer cast away a stone. When he came to Macarius he said, Abbot Macarius I am very much afflicted. In a certain village there lives {illeg} \a/ certain maid qua wch saith 700 prayers{sic} When I had learnt this I blamed myself because I could say but 300. To wch Macarius answered: Tis now {illeg} sixty years that I have said an hundred set prayers & yet I do not judge my self negligent. And this I take \For Macarius was he whom {illeg} r[144] Antony said left heir of his spirit & virtues as Elija did Elisha: s[145] for Antony himself numbred his prayers./ /Here you have\ ye original of the Popish custome of praying by beads: & if you desire the original of praying without in a wthout understanding or (wch is all <76r> one) in an unknown tongue, Cassian derives it from Antony ffor \tells you in these words./ [146] Antonij hæc erat cælestis & plusquam humana sententia. Non est, inquit, perfecta oratio in qua se Monachus, vel hoc ipsum quod orat intelligit. This was a heavenly & more then humane sentence of Antony: It is not a perfect prayer, saith he, in wch the Monk understands himself or what thing for wch he prays. And Which sentence Cassian {illeg} place descanting upon, places the efficacy of prayer in an assurance that God will grant what is fit for us whether it be according to or contrary to what we ask.

And whereas it was the opinion of ye first Christians that {illeg} when Christ came to judgment he would save some immediately, & baptize others with fire {illeg} casting them into prizon till they had payed ye uttermost farthing, & & then save them out \they should be saved/ /save them\ out of ye fire{sic} but \he would/ condemn others to {illeg} eternal pain torments: & therefore they prayed for ye middle sort of {illeg} \of man/ that they might have an early resurrection, that is \a resurrection/ from ye second death, wch is ye second resurrection: the Monks now began to corrupt this opinion & turn \it/ into the Popish doctrine of Purgatory T feigning \wthout any evidence of scripture or tradition/ that the souls of men in torments immediately after death went into heaven, purgatory or hell before they were sentenced thither by the judge & that those in torments received ease by the prayers of the Church. ffor this \They had also the doctrine of Purgatory as/ I gather from the story of M wch Ruffin tells of Macarius        \the disciple of Antony/[147] namely that in going of over ye sands of Egypt he found a dead mans skull & upon asking it questions the skull answered that he was in hell & found \that the damned found some/ ease by ye prayers of ye saint Church. This is a step beyond Purgatory.

The \first/ monks had also blind \also taught blind/ obedience to superiors in great estimation. [148] ffor Paul the simple is much commended for \performing/ this obedience & Cassian to Antony For it was h[149] a saying of Antony to such {illeg} as came to be admitted his disciples: You may be saved if you have obedience & do whatever I bid you. And such obedience you may find often commended & enjoyned in ye lives of the fathers.

Auricular confession & pennance was also ye doctrine & practise of ye first Monks. For it was a n[150] saying of Antony: The Monk ought to declare to ye Seniors, if it can be, \even/ how many paces he walks & how many cups of water he drinks in his cell


Whether Athanasius & his party did not falsly & maliciously affix the name of Arian upon the Eastern Churches which condemned him:


All parties who find themselves baffled are prone to grow angry & rail


Whether the Roman Catholicks were not wicked enough to deserve what they suffered under Constantius, Valens & the Vandals.


Whether the Vandals persecuted the Africans for their faith or only punished them for their immoralities.

Victor in his History of the Vandalick Persecution tells us that Hunneric king of ye Vandals began it in this manner. ffirst he commanded ye sacred Virgins or Nuns to be assembled & searched by midwives & then hung up wth weights at their feet & tortured wth heated plates of iron aplied to several parts of their bodies, saying: Confesse to us how yor Bishops & Priests lye with you? And this, saith Victor, he did, ut semitam inveniret per cujus aditum publicam, sicut fecit, inveniret faceret persecutionem, to find a way to ye following persecution. And what that persecution was he describes in the next words telling how 4966 Bishops Priests & Deacons & others, together wth a multitude of infants were at once sent into banishment. So then the Nuns as many as upon search were found vitiated, were questioned about those men wth whom they had layn & as many as would not confesse their lovers were urged to it by torments: & then ye persons whom they confest of, were sent away together wth ye bastard children into banishment. Now tho this were not so much \no more/ a persecution then {sic} the burning an unchast |Vestal| Virgin among ye Romans or the unchast daughters of ye Priests among ye Iews & putting ye fornicators also to death: yet Victor celebrates all these banished Bishops Priests & Deacons for holy martyrs & makes all the Nuns also who confest of them to be chast & spotlesse. But whether they were innocent is not the present question: they were tis enough yt they were punished as criminals. And by this beginning of the Persecution I leave you to guesse at ye rest.


Whether \the Emperor/ Valens persecuted the Athanasians for religion or only punished them for their faults /immoralities.\

After {illeg} Constantius reigned Iulian the Apostate two years & then ye Empire became divided between Valentinian & Valens. V \Now/ Valens \who/ reigned in the East {illeg} is recconned a very great Persecutor: And yet if you except such as were deposed as \deposed on the sentenced as/ criminals or perished in seditions I you will scarce meet wth either martyrs or confessors in his reign. ffor The {sic} \Ecclesiastical historians/ tell us indeed that he caused eighty Presbyters to be burnt together in a ship at sea. And this is the great act of cruelty for wch he is so much cried out of for a persecutor. But & to make it the more probable the names of some of the Presbyters are added. And this is the great act of cruelty for wch he is so much exclaimed against as a Persecutor. But what if this story be a fable? ffor the Historians wrote not till fifty years after the death of {illeg} Valens, & Greg. Nazianzen who lived in y \flourished/ in ye \very/ reign of Valens flourished in his reign tells us there was but one Presbyter burnt. ffor thô in an oratorical flourish he speaks b[151] somewhere in the plural number of \dead mens hands cut off &/ Presbyters burnt yet {illeg} yet \as he {illeg} meant {illeg} but one hand cut off/ in his 23d Oration where he tells ye story \of ye {illeg} ship distinctly/ distinctly he saith: that Ναυς φόρτον ἔχουσα των πρεσβυτέρων ἕνα, καὶ τουτον ὀυδὲ ὕπερ κακου τινος, ἀλλ᾽ ὕπερο πίστε{αις} κινδυνεύοντα, κατα πελάγους ἀφιήται – – – – – ἀνάπτεται τὸ πυρ, δαπαναται ἡ ναυς συνδαπαναται ὁ φόρτος, πυρ ὕδατι μίγνυται – – – – καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος κόνις &c. A ship was put to sea with one Presbyter in it to be burnt there, not for any wickedness but for his faith, & that this Presbyter being a pious man took it chearfully. Whilst the ship set to sail, a multitude of spectators stood on the shore some rejoycing others lamenting & then ye ship was set on fire & consumed wth ye Presbyter. And, saith Gregory, I have many witnesses of this story: for the tragedy of this punishment is come to ye ears of many. So then the first rumor spread abroad was but of one Presbyter in Asia minor where Gregory Nazianzen lived & where the thing was said to be done, was of but one Presbyter. \This Gregory wrote presently after the reign of Valens as the chief instance of ye persecutions of yt reign wch he could think of./ And whilst I consider how improbable it is that ye Emperor should destroy a ship so foolishly: I cannot beleive there was one. The story looks as if framed by somebody who not daring to lay ye scene of the execution in any town <49v> where he might have been confuted by the inhabitants contrived it at sea & pretended a multitude of \several/ spectators with himself on shore to confirm it. ffor one man or two any affirming themselves spectators might as easily send abroad ye story at first as others could afterwards mend it & cite \enlarge/ the number of martyrs from one to fourscore. So then to make Valens go for a Persecutor there has been such art & contrivance as would have been unnecessary had he been a persecutor in good earnest.

The Historians tell another \ridiculous/ story of him, as if he commanded that all those assembled in ye Church of \field conventicles/ at Edessa should be slain, but before the thing was put in execution revoked {sic} his order. But what kind of persecutor he was they inform us more truly when they tell us that he began his persecution with an edict that all those who had been banished by Constantius & released by Iulian should return into banishment.

But that you may know what kind of persecutor he was, the first & so far as I can find the greatest act of pers his persecution (if you set aside what happened upon seditions) was an {sic} edict that all those should be who were banished by Constantius & released by Iulian ye Apostate should return to banishment. And what sort of persecution followed is {illeg} discovered by |S.| Basil in his 220th Epistle in these words. Ἡ ἀνατολὴ πασα σχηδὸν &c {illeg} Almost all ye east, most reverend father, that is all ye regions from Illyricum to Egypt, is {sic} lost wth a vehement tempest by ye heresy long since spread by Arius the great enemy of truth, & {illeg} now impudently shewing it self again, & as from a bitter root bringing forth deadly fruit, & prevailing now because throughout all the Diocesses, the patrons of orthodoxy ἐκ συκοφαντίας, καὶ {illeg} ἐπηρείας των ἐκκλησιων ἐκπεσειν by false accusations & injurious reproaches are been thrown out of the deprived of the deposed from ye Churches. He means that they were deposed not in all ye diocesses, but in those few where they were. And to ye same purpose Gregory Nazianzen spe in his |32d| Oration[152] had before ye Bishops of ye \second general/ Council, of Constantinople after he had mentioned the persecution of Iulian speaks thus of Valens. The second was no whit more humane then Iulian him, or rather he was more grievous because whilst he bare the name of Christ he was a Pseudochrist false Christ & the disgrace of Christians: to whome it was \made/ impious to act & inglorious to suffer, because they did not seem to receive an <50r> injury nor was their {illeg} suffering \martyrdome/ accompanied wth a glorious name, but even here the truth was disguised, so that they who suffered as Christians were recconed to be punished as impious persons.

So again in his Oration against ye in laudem Heronis[153] he saith that ye persecution of Valens was in this respect more sharp then that of Iulian, because the conflict of the Martyrs was then not dubious & obscure \apparent & illustrius/ but now to suffer was inglorious at least before the unjust judges by whom they were condemned to suffer. I suppose he means So then what Valens did whether in punishing seditious persons by temporal Iudges or deposing Clergy men by spiritual ones, was not looked upon as a persecution during his reign by the people during his reign as a But \persecution, but/ those that suffered were thought to suffer justly. [Which satisfies me that {illeg} torturing {illeg} imprisoning & killing & burning for mere religion was not then in fashion. Sufferings there were but not so great as historians represent nor merely for ye Nicene faith but upon other accusations as before in ye reign of Constantius. For the homousians against whom they had no other accusations, as Basil & Paulinus, they did not meddle wth] For \For Meletius Bishop of Antioch/ Basil also[154] in his 70th Epistle wch he wrote to ye Churches of Gallia Epistle to ye Churches of Gallia & Italia writes to ye same purpose. A persecution lays hold of us, most reverend brethen {sic}, saith he, the most grievous of all persecutions. For the sheepherds are driven away that the flocks may be dispersed. And wch is the most grievous, neither they wch suffer with bear their sufferings patiently to ye accomplishing of martyrdome neither does the people venerate honour those as martyrs who suffer; by reason that the persecutors are covered over wth ye name of Christians. So then torturing imprisoning killing & burning for mere religion was not then in fashion: for such sufferings would have moved pity in the people. And tho they tell us they were persecuted for religion & Basil in this very Epistle makes reg religion ye {illeg} crime yet for wch they suffered, yet in the he means the secret crime \writes to the same purpose yet he means that religion was the secret cause/ for wch they really suffered und {illeg} under under other open pretenses. For he writes thus. {illeg} There is one crime now vehemently punished, \that is/ an accurate adhering to ye traditions of the ffathers. For this thing the pious are driven from their fathers seats & banished \translated/ into solitudes. With the unjust judges there is no veneration of ye hoary head, none of ye exercise of piety, none of conversation regulated according to ye gospel from youth all ye life: but whilst no wicked man malefactor {illeg} is condemned wthout good evidence, the Bishops are condemned by mere calumny {sic} alone, & without any proof of the accusations are delivered over to <51r> punishment. And some neither knew their accusers nor saw the judgment seats, nor were first accused, but were taken \by force/ in the night time & sent into banishment, being by ye calamities of ye sand deserts delivered to death. And what was ye consequence of \followed/ these things all men know thô we should be silent, namely the banishme \flight/ of Priests & Deacons & depredations of the whole clergy. Here you see Basil gives the western Bishops a full description of the eastern persecution. Some Bishops, saith {sic} he, were banished upon fals accusations, others were seized \carried away/ by force in ye night & banished wthout any trial: that is in cities where the people were tumultuous & would not suffer their Bishops to be brought to trial. In these the Presidents were necessitated to \were necessitated to/ seize {sic} ye Bishops in the night when ye people were asleep & afterwards upon to disperse their clergy before they could compose ye cities & place new bishops there. So you see it w So you see it was now grown in fashion for ye Clergy to raise seditions in their cities & cry up those for martyrs & confessors who were banished or otherwise suffered & cry out persecution when \ever/ they suffered for such practises. But what Athanasius & Hilary did before in the reign of Constan So you see it was now grown in fashion to \abet seditions &/ celebrate those for martyrs & confessors who suffered as sedit perished in seditions or suffered for raising them suffered for them. Athanasius & others did it in ye reign of Constantius & therefore you need not wonder if Basil did it now. ffor in his Epistle to ye Alexandrians[155] he \abets &/ sanctifies all their seditions by the {illeg} name of persecution wch they suffered raised against them \on the Emperors side/ & martyrdome on theirs. And as Athanasius had before stirred up ye Western Emperor against the Eastern so Basil now se now together wth other \Asiatic Eastern/ Bishops of his party sent several embassies into ye west to sollicite the western Bishops to their releife {sic}, that is, to sollicit them to move \stirr up/ ye western Emperor Valentinian against his brother Valens. [ffor Basil \a[156] wth ye rest Meletius Bishop of Antioch & others of their friends/ in the b[157] Epistle to {illeg} to ye Bishops of Gallia & Italy newly mentioned (wch was sent by \Dorotheus/ one of ye Bishops of Asia \those Eastern Bishops/ in the name of the rest,) of that party) saith: {illeg} < insertion from f 50v > For the eastern Bishops Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius, Basilius & ye rest \of Syria & Asia/ who held the Consubstantiality sending a common Embassy into ye West \on this errand to the/ Bishops of Italy & Gallia: Basil in the letter \Epistle/ wch he then wrote to & sent by to ye same western Bishops (that Epistle wch we newly mentioned) saith We desire ch in the name of them all: We desire chiefly – – – – < text from f 51r resumes > We desire chiefly that our confus troubles & confusion may be made known by your piety to the Emperor of your regions. So you see the practises & persecutions in ye reigns of \Constantius &/ Valens & Constantius were much of a kind excepting that the <71r> Western Bishops having fresh in their memory {the i}ll successe against Constantius durst not meddle wth Valens, & that the party of Athanasius being now \in the East being now by the spreading of monkery/ grown more strong in ye {illeg} then before, gave \& {illeg} & troublesome & seditious then before, gave/ Valens more foile then they had done Constantius. there Now of <68r> The meaning is that after the death of Valens, when ye Emperor Gratian by sent an edict into ye east to restore the consubstantialists & establish the faith & communion of the Bishop of Rome, {illeg} & the Council of Antioch at that time assembled upon ye reception of this edict sent Bishops into several parts of ye East to preach & propagate \openly/ ye Consubstantial Trinity: the whole world eastern world was put into such a vehement commotion as had scarce \ever/ happened at any time before. And at that time Gregory Nazianzen being sent by ye same Council to Constantinople, the flock wch \at his first coming thither/ he began to gather, so soon as deserted him so soon as he began to preach ye deity of the holy Ghost, This was in ye year 378 thre years before ye second general Council & (as he tells us in his life,) threw stones at him as if he had preached up a plurality of Gods.

Exarsit in me tota primum civitas[158]

Multos perinde ac si Deos inducerem.

Mirum nec est hoc, instituti sic erant

Ignota prorsus ut quibus fides pia

Esset modoqꝫ trina quonam est unitas,

Atqꝫ una rursum Trinitas. ———

Impres tacebo saxeos epulas meas.

This was in ye year 378, three years before the second general Council.

So then before this year ye Deity of ye Holy Ghost was rarely preached in ye east for fear of ye people. Basil himself {illeg} was so fearful of doing it that his faith was for a good while suspected by those of his own party. And when he began to use the new Doxology, tho he did not presently reject ye old one but used for a blind used that & ye new one promiscuously, the some of the people \then present (as b[159] he tells us/ rushed upon him saying that he used new & strange words & {illeg} also such as were contrary to one another. This put Basil upon writing his book de Spiritu Sancto wherein he labours much to defend \for he wrot it in Defense of/ the new Doxology. Yet he opposes not ye old doxology but grants it was then {sic} generally in use & not only then but in in ye former ages. All that he contends for is yt ye new doxology may be used & was sometimes used by the Fathers \tho so sparingly that he accounts it paradoxical to meet wth it in them Yet he thought t{hey} sometimes mi{ght} use it/: & in his 29th chapter produces out of antiquity whatever he could meet with to this purpose \{illeg}/. But considering \perusing/ his citations I as they are but few so they are nothing to ye purpose seem frivolous that only \of Dionysius & another of Apricanus the Chronologer/ excepted. |For| they {sic} are these. Clemens Romanus saith, God lives & ye Lord Iesus Christ & ye Holy Ghost \Irenaeus calls the spirit Θειον divine,/ Eusebius of Cæsarea hath these words: Invoking \wth the holy Spirit [that is through his assistance]/ God the author of light through or Saviour Iesus Christ. wth the holy Ghost, that is through his assistance. Origen in \his exposition on/ ye Psalmes sometimes gives glory wth ye Holy Ghost, that is, in him, or by his assistence. <69r> & in the sixt book of his exposition on Iohn pronounces the Holy Ghost \Trinity/ to be adored, & in his commentary on ye Romans he saith The holy vertues are capable of ye only begotten & of the Deity of ye Holy ghost. But Basil here subjoyns that Origen in these \last/ citations contradicts his own opinion: wch is as much as to say, that his books had {sic} been here corrupted. For Origen was no such tatter-brains as to contradict himself in ye first principles of Christianity. ✝ < insertion from f 68v > ✝ Basil further alleges that Gregorius the Neocæsarienses used the new Doxology & by conse because they were tenacious of ye traditions of Gregorius Thaumaturgus, he thence infers that they had it from this Gregory & used it ever since his time. But this is a sophism of Basils. ffor Basil tells us in his 64th Epistle to ye Doctors of Neocæsarea tells us that the Neocæsarienses were then lapst into Sabellianism teaching one hypostasis of ye three ffather Son & Holy Ghost & pleading that Gregory in his Creed had said πατέρα καὶ {illeg} υἱὸν ἐπινοία μὲν ἐινα δυὸ, ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕν, that ye father & Son were two in ye mode of conception, |&| but one in hypostasis: whereas saith he the heresy of Sabellius was laid asleep by the tradition of this Gregory & in his writing were to be found many words wch added strength even to ye contrary heresy now reigning as τὸ κτίσμα καὶ τὸ ποίημα καὶ ἔι τι τοιουτη a creature & a facture work a facture & if there be any thing else of that kind. The Neocæsarienses therefore had this \new/ doxology not from Gregory but from the Sardican Sabellianism, Now these allegations from whence also ye western Churches derived it. Now these allegations are all < text from f 69r resumes > These {sic} is \citations are/ all yt Basil could find in ye Fathers for \the Deity & worship of ye Holy Ghost/ wch being either frivolous or spurious incline me vehemently to suspect that ye fathers were absolute strangers to ye new doxology. {illeg} And therefore he that made Dionysius use it & quote antiqui pleade ye authority of antiquity for doing so \that use/, seems to have misrepresented antiquity that by their feigned authority he might perswade his credulous followers to receive it.

In a word ye new doxology \ascribed to Dionysius/ together wth what preceded in the body of his {sic} apology is so inconsistent wth what \as well with the other writings of/ Dionysius wrote before that as wth ye language of his age that to make him the author of it requires much better evidence then ye single testimony of Athanasius a much more credible person \person/ than Athanasius & looks so like the artifice of Athanasius that I must accuse him & desire his friends to clear him by some other evidence \lay aside their Athanasius dixit & clear him by/ fair evidence.


Whether Athanasius for stifling objections taken from ye writings of Dionysius of Alexandria & from ye Council of Antioch collected against Paul of Samosat & for changing the ancient Doxology did not feign records.

\② About 10 years after this/ The Council of Antioch \consisting of 70 Bishops or according to Hilary of 80)/ collected out of almost all ye East against Paul of Samosat \AC {illeg}/ & consisting of about 55 years before the Council of Nice, & consisting of sevent in condemning this Heretick decreed that the son was not homousios to ye father. This is \expresly/ acknowledged by a[160] Athanasius [161] Hilary & [162] Basil & denyed by no body. And this decree was then universally received in ye Churches the Council sending about their sentence wth circulatory letters to ye Bishops of Rome & Alexandria & other Metropolitans to be communicated to ye rest of the Bishops, & all ye Churches acquiescing in it wthout any dispute then raised. Nor was this Council generally received in that age only but hath ever since by all the Churches of all ages been acknowledged orthodox, Athanasius himself not daring to oppose it but chusing rather by shams to decline & silence ye force of its authority. So that of all ye Councils wch have been \ever/ since the Apostles days this has ye best right to ye title of an \orthodox &/ ecumenical Council.

|| About 10 or 12 years before this Council, Dionysius of Alexandria (as d[163] Athanasius informs us), hearing that some bishops of Pentapolis much propagated the opinion of Sabellius in those parts: wrote against them an Epistle to Ammon & Euphranor; in wch he affirmed, that ye Son of God was a thing made & formed & not the Father's proper son by nature but alien from him according to essence, as a vine is from the nature of the Husbandman & a ship from that of ye workmen: for being a thing made he was not before he was made. |For that Dionysius wrote this is acknowledged by Athanasius.|

About 55 years after this Council was ye Council of Nice {illeg} wch within ye space of one day, the the Emperor being present & pressing ye homousios, debated & decreed through his importunity decreed it, but afterwards understanding that by their \over/ hasty decree they had dissolved the decree of ye Council of Antioch, they began to repent of what they had done \& complained that the word was unwarily put by the Council/ & ceased not till by the Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia they got their own decree repealed.

And now Athanasius finding his cause \very/ desparate betook himself to those many artifices wch we have described above & <83r> & because the homousios had been abrogated by ye authority of the Council of Antioch & ye authority of his predecessor Dionysius lay hard upon him, he endeavoured to avoyd them after this manner. He represented[164] that what Dionysius wrote respected the humane nature of Christ, & that some at that time accusing this {sic} as if Dionysius before Dionysius \Bishop/ of Rome, as if he had said that ye Son was ο ποίημα a creature & not consubstantial to ye father, a Council thereupon collected at Rome was offended & troubled at it & the Bishop of Rome wrote back all the {sic} common sentence of them all, opposing as well the opinions of Arius as those of Sabellius, & desiring Dionysius of Alexandria to explain himself about what was objected to him. & that Dionysius of Alexandria thereupon wrote his book entituled The accusation & apology; wherein he maintains that Christ was always {sic} the word & wisdom – – –

[1] {illeg}

[2] ✝ T{heod. Eccl. Hist.} l.1 {c.13.}

[3] b Socr. l {illeg} 33 \37, 38./ Sozom l {illeg} c 27, 28, 29. Eccl {illeg}

[4] {illeg}

[5] {illeg}

[6] Athanas. Apol. 2

[7] Apud Theodoretū l 1. c 6.

[8] a Concilium Antiochenū Epist. ad Iu{lium} Papam.

[9] Euseb. in vita Constant. l 4.c 43, 47. ex versione Valesij.

[10] Apol 3 Athanas. Apolog. 2. p 781, 7{illeg}

[11] Athanas {illeg} pag {illeg} 2{illeg}

[12] Athanas pag. {illeg} {illeg}

[13] Apud Athan. Apol. 2 & Hilar. {illeg} fragm.

[14] b Vide Hilar. Fragm.

[15] Ath. Apol. 2 p 77

[16] Philostorg. l. 2. c. 12

[17] Sozom. l. 2. c 25 Theod l 1. c 30

[18] Sozom. l. 2 c. 25

[19] Euseb. Vit. Cons. l. 3. c. 23

[20] Socr. l. 1. c. 23

[21] d Sozom l 2 {illeg} & l {illeg}

[22] d Sozom. {illeg} c. 17 & 23

[23] e Philostorg. l. 3. c. 11

[24] Sozom. l. {illeg} &amp; 23. Phil{ostorg.} l. 3. c.11

[25] Apud E{pist. Concil.} Alex. {apud Athanas.} Apol. {2.}

[26] c. Constan{tin. Imp.} apud Athan{as.} Apol. 2. p. {780.}

[27] a. Sozom. {illeg} c. 24.

[28] a μηδὲ τὸ {μαρ}τυρες ὁι δ{ικα}στὰι γενέα{αι} παραιτ{η} μενοι. Ep{ist.} Concil. A{lex.}

[29] a. Hilar. ad Constant.

[30] b. Severꝫ. Hist. l 2 c 55

[31] c Ambros. serm 69 de Natali Eusebij

[32] d. Sozom. l. 4 c. 9

[33] p. {illeg} Athanas. Apol. 1

[34] q. Constant. Epist. ad Ægyptios apud Athanas. Apol. 1.

[35] z. Sozom. l 4. c 9.

[36] b. Epistola Liberij Papæ apud Lucif. Calar. in. fin. & to 9 Bibl. sanct.

[37] c. Apud. Baron. ann. 353. s. 19.

[38] r. \Athan. Apol. 1/ Sozom l 4. c 9. Baron. ann. 354. s.17. Athan

[39] s Athan. Apol. 1.

[40] s Athan. Apol. 1.

[41] d. Hilar. ad Constantium

[42] k. Maximus apud Ambros. serm. 69 de natali Eusebij.

[43] e Sev{erus Hist.} l. 2. c

[44] f. Apud \Extat/ in Hilar. fragm.

[45] g. Sozom. l. 4 c. 9. Sever. l 2 c. 55.

[46] q. Sozom. l 2. c 24

[47] Sozom

[48] Sozom. l. 2. c. 29

[49] 2 Cor. 5

[50] Athan.

[51] Sozom l. 4. c. 9

[52] Sozom. ib

[53] Lucif. li. Moriend. pro Dei filio

[54] Extat Epistola apud Athanasium.

[55] Ath. Apol. 1. p

[56] Athanas. Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes p. 857

[57] Ib. p. 811

[58] Lucif. lib. moriend. pro filio Dei.

[59] Hilar cont. Constantium. p. 323 Edit. Paris. 1652.

[60] Baron. an.360. sec.3.9.

[61] Greg. Naz. {Carm.} Iamb. 21. {p.23}.

[61] Greg. Naz. Carm. Iamb. 21. p. 23…

[62] ✝ Hæres. 69 sect. 12

[63] Sozom. l: {3} c. 12.

[64] Concil. Chalc Calch. Act. 3 initio

[65] Theod Eccl. A{illeg} l    c

[66] b Athanas de Synod. {illeg}

[67] Hilar. p. 390 edit Paris. 1652

[68] ✝ Apud

[69] ✝ Apud

[70] ✝ Notis in Sozom. l. 2. c. 16.

[71] Apud Theod l. 4. c. 8

[72] ἀλλα οὑτὼς ἀτεχνως τὰ {illeg} γεγγαμμένα λεγέτω καὶ ψαλλέτω         ὑπὲρ του τοὺς διακονήσαντας ἁγίους ἀυτὰ, ἐπιγινώσκοντας τὰ ἑαντων συνεύχεσθαι ἡμιν …………

[73] ἀλλα οὑτὼς ἀτεχνως τὰ {illeg} γεγγαμμένα λεγέτω καὶ ψαλλέτω         ὑπὲρ του τοὺς διακονήσαντας ἁγίους ἀυτὰ, ἐπιγινώσκοντας τὰ ἑαντων συνεύχεσθαι ἡμιν …………

[74] Sozom. l. 5. c 20.

[75] Intercessione angelorum non natura Dei indige{illeg} sed infirmites nostra ad rogandu{illeg} promerendum spiritualis intercessionis ministerio {illeg} indigente. Hilar. in Psal. 129. Neqꝫ desunt stare volentibus sanctorum custodiæ neqꝫ angelorum munitiones. And a little after Ac ne {illeg}ve præsidium in Apostolis vel Patriarchis vel Prophetis vel potius Angelis qui Ecclesiam quadam custodia circumsepiant, crederimus, &c Hilar in Psal. 124.

[76] δεήσεως συνεργὸι πρεσβύτατοι δυνα τώτατοι..

[77] Ephræm Syrus Orat 2 De laud. sanctorū Christi martyrum.

[78] Heron senior memoria et oblatione pausantium [i.e. mortuorum] judicabatur indignus. Cassian. Collat. 2. {illeg}

[79] Pallad. Hist. Laus cap. 67.

[80] Greg. Naz. Orat. 11.

[81] Orat

[82] Orat 18 in Vita Cypr

[83] Orat. 21 in Laud. Athanasij.

[84] a Baron. an. 381. sec. 41.

[85] Ruffin l. 2 &amp; Chrysost. Hom ad populum finem.

[86] a. Hom 9 in {Gen.} 1 sub finem. {& Hom} 15 in Gen 3 {sub} finem. Hom {illeg} &amp; 43 in Gen {illeg} Exposit. in P{sal} 48, priori pa{rti} Serm. in ascen{illeg} Christi, Serm{illeg} Cæmeterij ap{pel}lationem. Ho{m.} 8, 27 in M{illeg} Hom 1 in {illeg} &amp;c.

[87] Diabolum per Plus crudelitati{s} vestræ Nero Deci Maximiane debemus. Diabolum enim per vos vicimus. Sanctus ubiqꝫ martyrum sanguis exceptus est. Dum in his Dæmones mugiunt, dum aegritudines depelluntur dum admirationum opera cernuntur elevari sine laquieis corpora et despe{illeg}sis pede fæminis vestes non defluere in faciem, uri sine ignibus spiritus, et confiteri sine interrogantis incremento fidei

[88] a Chrysostom Orat. in Ma{rty}res Aegyptios

[89] a Baron an. 372 sect

[90] Hieron. in Vit. Hilarion.

[91] Ruffin. Eccl. Hist l.

[92] b Iulian in Misopagone.

[93] Hieron epist. 27 ad Eustochum.

[94] e Ruffin. Hist. l 2 c. 28.

[95] a Ad Pontifice{m} maximum tunc Athanasium, hosti{æ} immaculatæ reliquias per Iulianum Diaconum suum post etiam Palestinæ \urbis/ Episcopum mittit. Quas ille susceptas paucis arbitris sub cava{illeg} sacrarij pariete inclusas prophetico spiritu profuturi generationi poster{illeg} conservavit R{uff} Eccl. Hist. l.2. c 28.

[96] d Basil Ora{illeg} in 40 Marty{illeg}

[97] a Baron. an. 38. sect. 42.

[98] b D. Augustin de opere monac{illeg} c. 28.

[99] c Martyres tibi quærantur in cubiculo tuo. Hieron ad Eustach Ep. 22 ad Eustoch.

[100] Humatum corpus nemo ad alterum locum transferat, nemor martyrem distrahat nemo mercetur, &amp;c. L. ult. de Sepulch. violat. C. Theod.

[101] Placuit ut altaria quæ passim per agros et {illeg} tanquam memoria martyrum constituuntur, &amp;c. Concil. 5 Carthag. Can. 14.

[102] g Theod. De curat. Græc affect. cap. 9{illeg} in fine.

[103] Non immeritò {illeg} pleriqꝫ hanc martyrū resurrectionem appellant. Videro tamen an certi martyres utrum sibi an nobis certi martyres resurrexerunt. Cognovistis imò vidistis {illeg} ipsi multos a Dæmone libantes purgatos, &amp;c. Ambros. Epist. 85 ad Sororem.

[104] b Vizt. In ye 20th year after current after the silencing of ye Oracle of Iulian \at Antioch/ by ye bones of Babylas, as {illeg} Chrysostom mentions in this {sic} Oration.

[105] Reparata vetusti temporis miracula &c. Ambros Ep. 85 Ad Marcellam.

[106] b D. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, l. 22, c. 8.

[107] d. Tom. 10 in appendice Edit. Plantan.

[108] Rides de reliquis martyrum et cum autore hujus hæreseos auctore

[109] Cassian. Collat. 7. cap. 32.

[110] Cassian. Collat. 15. cap. 3. Palli{illeg} Laus. 19. Niceph l 19. c 14.

[111] a Sulpitius Hist. l. 2. c. 57: Liberius Epist. ad Cath. Episc. Ital.

[112] b Basil. Serm. de Askesi.

[113] Hieron Ep princip. 90. |Hieron. de princip. ep. 16|

[114] Socr. l. 4 c. 23.
Cassian Co{llat.} 8. c. 16.

[115] Socr. l 4. c 23
Cassian Collat 8 c. 16.
D. Augustin. de doctr Chr. l. 1, Proleg.

[116] D. Augustin. de doctr Chr. l. {1,} Proleg.

[116] D. Augustin. de doctr Chr. l. 1, Proleg.

[117] a {illeg} \Athanas./ Vit. A{ntonij} Edit. Paris. A{.C.} 1627: pag 45{2,} & pag 453 \453/

[117] a Athanas. Vit. Antonij Edit Paris, A.C. 1627 pag 452, 453.

[118] c pag 493.

[118] c pag. 493.

[119] a in vita Hilarionis sub initio

[120] Socr. l. 1. c. 2.

[121] Sozom l. 1 c {illeg}

[122] Ruffin. Eccl. l 1. c 8.

[123] {illeg} 35, 71. 81

[124] D. Augustin Confess. l 8. c 6.

[125] Socr l. 4.

[126] Socr. l. 4.

[127] Chrysostom Hom. 8 in Matt. 2.

[128] Sozom. l. 1 c 13

[129] p L.16 De Pænis Cod. Theod. & {illeg} de Epis{illeg} Theod & 32 de Episc et Cler. Cod. Theod.

[130] q Siricius Papa epist. 1. ad Himmerium {illeg} anno 385. Vide etiam Augustin. ep. 76 ad Papā Himmerium. Et Hieron. \{illeg}/ ad Rusticum

[131] t

[132] b See Baron. an. 393 sect 48.

[133] a See ye \life of Hilarion in/ ye Preface to ye life of Antony.

[134] Sozom. l. 6. c 27.

[135] Extat apud {illeg}d. l. 1 c 4

[136] f Sever. Hist. l. 2. c 50

[137] g Greg. Naz. Orat. 23 in laudem Heronis

[138] h Greg. Orat. 20 in laud Basil.

[139] k Greg. at 21 in laud. Athanas.

[140] {V}ide {illeg}lam {illeg} Athanasij ad Dracontium.

[141] a Libidinis Dæmon. variorum corporum desiderio animas inflammat, acriusqꝫ eos qui continentiæ student, urget: quo nimirum tanquam frustra laborantes institutum suum abrumpant. Atqꝫ animam inficiens, & dicere et rursus audire verba facit, non secus ac si res ipsa cerneretur ac præsto esset. Hæc Evagrius (Palladij magister) de octo vitiosis cogitationibus.

[142] t See the collection of Rosweydus.

[143] Pallad. in vita Pauli Abbatis. cap 23.

[144] r Pallad in vita Macarij Alexandini. c. 20.

[145] s Pallad. in vit. Pauli simplicis c.

[146] Cassian Col{illeg} 9 cap 31.

[147] g Ruffin vit.Par{illeg} l 2 c     et {illeg} Author Græcus l. 3 c. 16 apud Roswedum.

[148] h

[149] Pallad. in vita Pauli simplicis. cap. 2

[150] n Ruffin. Vit. patr. l {illeg} c. 176.

[151] b Orat. 25.

[152] Orat. 32 p. 5{illeg}

[153] Orat. 27

[154] Basil. Ep. 70 p. 860.

[155] Basil. Epis p. 864.

[156] a. Vide Epist. {illeg}

[157] b. Epist. 70 p. 860

[158] Greg. Naz. carm de vita sua.

[159] b Basil de Spiritu Sancto cap. 1.

[160] a Athan.

[161] b Hil. de Synod.

[162] c Basil Epist. 300.

[163] d. Athan. de sent. Dionys. Alex.

[164] Athanas. de sent. Dionys. Alex. & \in/ Apologia 2da.

© 2024 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC