r*Tr 
 
 i 
 
 
 W*B> 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 ■ 
 
 

 ' 
 
 
 A 
 
 6 
 
 o- 
 
 s 
 
 AT 
 
 PRINCETON, X. J." 
 
 DONATION « > !•- 
 
 SAMUEL A G N EW, 
 
 ¥ f II I I. .«. I) K LFHIA, PA. 
 
 ^Ti/^i/oh/ /S 'dL/s j o<ir, 
 
 QTo. 
 
 ( €a * e > f £S 
 
 BooJfe, (j 
 
A 
 
 m 
 

DEFENSE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O 
 
 Mr. WhiftorfsSvsvicioKs, 
 
 A N D A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O H I S 
 
 Charge oFForgery 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 St. ATHANAS1US. 
 
 In a Letter to Mr. WHIST ON. 
 
 By STTAN^THIRLBT, B. A- 
 Fellow of Jefus College in Cambridge. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, 
 Printed at the U n i v e r s i t y-P r e s Sj 
 for Cornelius Crcnvnfield Printer to the Univers/ 
 ty. And are to be Sold by John Morphea, Qe ar 
 Stationers-Kail, LO NDON. iji-y. 
 
SIR, 
 
 IT will be of little UJe to pu, or any o- 
 tber Reader-* to know the Reafons for 
 which I have fo long defer d the 'Publica- 
 tion of thefe Tapers, or the Motives which 
 have prevailed upon me topublifh them after 
 fo long a "Delay. Tet fince yon have under- 
 taken to account for this Delay, by giving 
 out that I had long ago written an Anfwer 
 to your Letter*) and fent it to the Trefs* 
 and afterwards recalled it, as if upon a 
 cooler Examination, after the firft heat of 
 Writing was over, I had found reafon to 
 dijlrufi the Goodnefs of AthanzfiussCaufe; 
 I think my felf in fome meafure obliged, in 
 my own Defenfe, to affure you, that the 
 Story and the lnfinuation it carries with it 
 are Falfe andGroundlefs. It istrueindeedi 
 I drew up an Anfwer to your Letter im- 
 mediately upon the Receipt of it, but I ne- 
 ver fent it to the Prefs, neither was lever 
 fully refolved to Print it : Not that If aw 
 any thing Formidable or Unanfwerable in your 
 Letter, but becaufe I found my Friends of 
 very different Opinions about it-, fome affu- 
 ting me that an Anfwer to it was general* 
 fa expected from me, Others on the contra- 
 ry affirming that the Firfl Tart, in which 
 I was more nearly concerned, defervedno An- 
 fwer, and that the Latter, your new Charge 
 of Forge ry> might perhaps be thought tti 
 
 A 2 de- 
 
defer ve an Anfwer from fome better Hand. 
 And thus having let ftp the mofl proper 
 time of Tubltfhing thefe Tapers, partly 
 through the Intervention of other Bufinefs,but 
 chiefly through the lrrefolution which this 
 *D if agreement of Opinions among ft my Friends 
 had occafioned in my own mind, I began 
 to think, that they ought either to have 
 been 'tubhfhed fooner, or not at all. For 
 thefe Reafons they had long lain by 
 me Neglected and Forgotten, till the a- 
 bove mentioned Story of yours, and your loud 
 Triumphs upon all Occafions, in Trint 
 and in Converfation, effectually convinced 
 me, that it was now become abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary for me to Tublifh them; unlefs I 
 was willing to have it Univer fatty be- 
 lieved, that I had entirely given up the 
 Caufe of Athanafius, as, even in my own 
 Opinion, T>efperate and Indefenfible. This 
 is what I thought fit to Tremife in Op- 
 pofition to the Falfe Account , you have 
 given of this Matter, left my filence upon 
 an Gccafion, which may feem fo proper for 
 'Denying it, fhould be taken for a Confef- 
 fion and Confirmation of it. And now, 
 Sir, without any farther ^Preface, I floall 
 addrefs my (elf to the Examination of 
 your Letter*, confidering every thing you 
 have f aid in order as it lies in the Im- 
 method:cal Method you have prefcribed we. 
 
 I. THE 
 
A Defenfe of the Anfwer to &c. 5 
 
 I.^T^HE firft thing you Obferve in my 
 * Anfwer is, that I all along require 
 full 'Proof and undoubted Evidence* where 
 you fet down your Thoughts only under the 
 Notion of Sufpicions. To this I reply , 
 that it is too late for you to think of find- 
 ing (helter under the modeft Title you 
 have given your Thoughts r 5 for though 
 you called them only Sufpicions, yet you 
 concluded from them as Pofitively, as you 
 now do from this laft ConvicJive T)ifco- 
 very, that ATHANASIUS was a Knave 
 and an Ignoramus ' : fo that had I really 
 required pofitive Proof for a pofitive Af- 
 fertion, you would not have had theleaft 
 caufe to Objefr, that I had miftaken the 
 ftate of the Queftion betwixt us, and de- 
 manded c Demonftration<> where you pre- 
 tended to nothing more than Probability, 
 When I am confidently told, that a Man, 
 whofe Aftions and Sufferings make fo no- 
 ble a Part of Eccleiiaftical Hiftory, who 
 has been in the Undifputed Pofleflion of 
 fo Glorious a Character for above thirteen 
 hundred Years, who was no lefs than five 
 
 1 Thus Sufp. 7. That this Life cf Anthony is not written \fin- 
 cerely by Athanafius is plain &c. They ought therefore in Con- 
 ference to give up Athana/ius. Sufp. \\We hence le^rn ei- 
 ther that Athanafius was forced to Forge, or that he was a% Ig- 
 noramus* Sufp. \$. That this is in part derivd from his Kna- 
 veryit Evident &c. Sufp. 16. Heft,zrJshercC<mvi&cdofFaIfe- 
 held. 
 
 times 
 
£ A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 times in Banifhment, in Perils in the Ci- 
 Ifj in 'Perils in the Wildernejs, and in 
 ^Deaths o/ti purely for the fake of his 
 Confcience, was, notwithstanding all this, 
 the greatefl: Villain in the World -, I think 
 it is but Reafonable to expert Undoubted 
 Evidence for it. If there be any fuch thing 
 as a Relative Duty betwixt Men of the 
 prefent and pad Ages, if there be any fuch 
 thing as a Communion and Society betwixt 
 the Church Militant and Triumphant -, it 
 is certainly a piece of Juftice highly due 
 to the Memory of Thole, who have in 
 their Generations Contended earneflly* to 
 the Hazard of their Lives, that the Faith 
 which was once delivered to the Saints* 
 might be delivered down to usalfoPure 
 and Undefiled, Not to give up their Cha- 
 racters to every little Surmize. But how- 
 ever, this is not the Cafe. As Reafona- 
 ble and Juft as it is to expeft Full Proofs 
 I have been fo far from infilling upon it, 
 that I have endeavoured to bring (lich 
 Proof my felf againft feveral of your Sttf- 
 picions. If I have failed in my Endea- 
 vours, it was your Bufinefs in this Re- 
 ply to have (hewn it, inftead of com- 
 plaining that I hzvcRequiredOfyou ftrong- 
 er Proof than the Nature of the Thing 
 will admit of; where f it is fo very plain, that 
 I have pretended at leaft to bring much 
 ftronger Proof A^ind you, than Modern 
 
 Suffi- 
 
Mr. Whifton 's Snfpicions. y 
 
 Snfpicions againft an Eftabliftied Chara&er 
 of Antiquity can often admit of, or ever 
 deferve. 
 
 TO require fuch Legal Conviction is 
 ftill the more Unreafonable, you fay, be- 
 caufe the World knows, that the Athana- 
 fians have long ago 'Dropped or Supprejfed 
 thofe oppojite Arian Accounts* and many 
 of thofe Original Records, which were 
 likely to tend fo much to their T)ifadvan- 
 tage. That Many Accounts and Original 
 Records have been loft long ago, all the 
 World knows* or eafily may know : but it 
 is not altogether fo eafy to know what 
 was contained in thofe Accounts and Re- 
 cords* which have been loft fo long ago. 
 And fince fo many Millions of Books, 
 and other Monuments of Antiquity, have 
 perifhed by the Common, and almoft Un- 
 avoidable, Injuries of Time - y fince the 
 Arians were fo notorioufly Guilty of De- 
 stroying the Writings of the Orthodox i 
 if I had not already obferved in your various 
 Works many Inftances of that great Po- 
 wer, which our Wills too often exercife 
 over our Underftandings ; I fhould have 
 wondered very much how you could poffi- 
 bly work your felf up to fo full a Perfuafion, 
 that neither Time, nor Chance, nor the 
 Arians* nor the Worms, but the Athana- 
 fans, and they only have robbed the 
 World of thefe Original Records. 
 
 A + li 
 
8 A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 II. YOU Ob/erve .n the next place, that 
 ATUaNASIUSs Accounts are not early 
 enough for our Sit is faction •, as beginning 
 not till about 2f Tears after the Council 
 of Nice, and abou; 14 afur thofe of lyre^ 
 Jrrufalem> and Conjtanunople. 1 muft 
 own, 1 can neither lee any Force, nor find 
 any Meaning, in this Obfervatton-, unlefs 
 you fuppofe, that no Hiftory is to be re- 
 ]y~d upon, which is not written and pub- 
 ] flied immediately after the conclu.il on of 
 the Tranfwicrions related in it (which is ve- 
 ry feldom done, and often impoflible to 
 be done) and that ATHANAS1US was 
 under fome odd iort of Obligation or o- 
 ther, to write an Annual Account of His 
 own Actions, and pubhfh it at the Year's 
 end. Befides, Sir, you may pleafe to re- 
 member, what I have already Obferved to 
 you », that ATHANAS1US wroteHis^- 
 pology when there were many People a- 
 Jive, Willing enough, if they had been 
 Able, and iuch too as had been Able, if 
 any Man had been Able, to prove His Ac- 
 counts Falfe, and His Letters Forgeries. 
 
 ill. IN your Third Obfervation you en- 
 deavour to Invalidate the Authority of Ba- 
 fil y Nazianzeth Socrates, and the like A- 
 thanafians-, when Quoted as diftintl Au- 
 thentick IVitnefJes for ATHANASIUS's 
 
 1 Anfwer p.' 49. 
 
 Fin- 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpcions. ? 
 
 Vindication : particularly, in the Cafe of 
 Socrates^ you fay, this cannot but be 
 e (teemed by all Impartial Judges a grofs 
 Impofition-, fince himfelf largely and fully 
 ajfures us> that he altered thofe Tarts of 
 his Hijlory, which he at firft had chiefly 
 taken out of Rafinus^ to accommodate it to 
 the Accounts of AT HAKASlUSy and that 
 he did not add the Copies of his Records 
 till then, Grofs Imposition is a very hea- 
 vy Charge expreffed in Language not 
 the mod Courtly,- If it fhould chance to 
 recoil upon your felf, you muft thank 
 your felf for it, and not complain of 
 Hard Words or Reflections. It is a Com- 
 pliment which you have made me more 
 than once j but that (hall not provoke me 
 to return it, or fo much as to call This, 
 in Language fomething Softer than yours 3 
 an Artful Mifreprefentation of Socrates's 
 Meaning. You will give me leave how- 
 ever to (hew, fince you have obliged me to 
 do it in my own defenfe, that you have 
 widely mifunderftood and palpably mifre- 
 prefented his Meaning in this Place, of 
 which the Paflage it felf is a fufficient 
 Proof without any Comment ; Nothing 
 being more plain, than that the chief, if 
 not the only Miftakes, he there fays he 
 was led into by Rufnus, and had correct- 
 ed by the help of ATHANASIUS (who 
 could not but know the time of His own 
 
 Sttf- 
 
i o A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 Sufferings and Banifhment better thani?«- 
 finus) were purely Chronological. ' « Ru- 
 u firms, fays he, has made feveral Miftakes in 
 "the Notation of Time. For he places 
 "all the Troubles of ATHANASIUS af- 
 " ter the Death of the Emperor Conjiantine. 
 "He is alfo altogether ignorant of His 
 <c Banifhment into Gaul, and many other 
 " things. Him I have formerly followed 
 " in the firft and fecond Books of my Hifto- 
 <f ry. But having afterwards met with 
 "fome of ATHANASlUS's Writings, 
 c 'in which He complains of His Sufferings 
 ''and Banifhment; I concluded, that I 
 " ought to believe him who had felt what 
 * he related, and fuch as had been Eye- 
 < c WitnefTesof the Facts, rather than thofe 
 " who went only upon Conje&ure. 
 
 YOU might have feen too, when you 
 had this Paffage of Socrates before you, 
 that the fecond Edition of his Hiftory was 
 not Corre&ed by the Afliftance of A- 
 THJNASKJPsWritingsonly^ but that he 
 had alio found a very valuable Colle&ion of 
 
 ma lowi^H (£} to* Tth&'rri* & fixnXtwt K6>*surwtit ^yif?^* tiyvil 
 
 tajft hit mszuit i*£\\oi tt$ xxmvQoTi, >£ Tr>?$ yiioj^ut *? nrgpy 
 tueLva* >jmoo»<ni, « rot's fpmsvjctmititoiyois #tf7wV, x} S^ room 
 vAa>.fy7a. Socr. H. E.l. 11. f. l. 
 
 Letters^ 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpkions. 
 
 x 1 
 
 Letters, written by Men Eminent in thoje 
 Times 1 , which were of great Ufe to him * 
 fome of which too he exprefly Cites elfe- 
 where \ As to your next Claufe (that 
 he did not add the Copies of his Records 
 till then) The Infmuation has the appear- 
 ance of more Artifice than I am willing 
 to accufe you of, as not only tending to 
 depredate Socrates's Teftimony in general, 
 but alfo very Conveniently placed to pre- 
 pare the way for your Grand c Di[covery< i 
 by infenfibly Prepofleffing your Readers 
 With fuch an Opinion of that Hiftorian, 
 as may afterwards help to remove an Ob- 
 jection againft It, and make them the more 
 ready to take it for granted, that Socrates 
 was a famous Tranfcriber of ATHANASI- 
 US's Records. But if he did not add the 
 Copies of his Records till then, it was not 
 becaufe he had none to add before hefaw 
 ATHANASIUSs Works; but, as he tells 
 us himfelf ', becaufe he was firft of Opini- 
 on, that they would clog the Narration, 
 and make it tedious, though he afterwards 
 altered his Mind and inferted them into 
 the Body of his Hiftory. But farther, 
 had Socrates exprefled himfelf lefs clearly, 
 even fo as to leave room for Sufpicion, 
 
 1 "Ew j*£p >£ im&\£* t Ttrt S^ef/pipui imTiTvyvKortc,, *<; 
 *>of ri rlw uX^etott ccu'^iiuezcyy. Socr. 1. II. c. I. 
 
 2 *Q? 5 Jf 6 *^ °* 2>l$.(po£»>i hnwXSt tl{4>&ffyi t *• t- A. Id. 1. I. 
 
 * *yt«infrm$ im^iuS^, Id. 1. II. G I. that 
 
ii A Defenfe of the Anfixer to 
 
 that he had taken the Copies of his Re- 
 cords from ATHANASIUS, that Sufpi- 
 cion would immediately vanifh upon com- 
 paring their Copies of the fame Records* 
 and obferving the Variations, which would 
 be found to be at the fame time too in- 
 confiderable both for Number and Weight 
 to affe£t the Authority of thofe Records* 
 and alfo too great to be thought confident 
 with your Notion that the one Tranfcrib- 
 ed the other. One Inflance of this 
 may not perhaps be improper. A- 
 THANAS1US, in His Copy of Pope Ju- 
 lius's Letter to the Alexandrians ', be fides 
 many other Variations from Socrates* § Co- 
 py *, has omitted feveral Sentences toge- 
 ther, and thofe infinitely to His own Ho- 
 nour and Advantage; amounting to above 
 a fifth Pare of the Epiftle. Socrates how* 
 ever has taken care to preferve them from 
 fome other Copy* and this is not only an 
 Anfwer to your Exception againft Socrates 
 as a Tranfcriber from Athanafius* but alfo an 
 Argument of ATHJNASlUS's exceffive 
 Modefty; in this beyond the Example of 
 theGreateft Men in all Ages, that where- 
 as they generally thought themfelves at 
 liberty, when vilifyed by tjieir Adverfa- 
 ries, not only to juftify, but alfo to com- 
 mend themfelves -, He was of Opinion, that 
 the necefiity His Virulent Enemies had 
 
 (i) uipol. c. Arum, p. 171, 2. (1) L. n.c. 23 . 
 
 brought 
 
Mr. Whifton / Sufpicions. 1 3 
 
 brought Him under of Appealling to the 
 Judgment of Better Men could not fo far 
 free Him from the ordinary Rules of De- 
 cency, as to allow Him fomuch as topub- 
 lifli the Praifes given Him by Others, in 
 oppofition to the bafe Calumnies ofHis 
 Perfecutors. I might add, in Confutation 
 of the above-mentioned Infinuation, that 
 there are ftill fo many Anachronifms, 
 and other little Miftakes in Socrates s Ac- 
 count of ATHANASIUS's Affairs, that 
 whatever Writings of His that Hiftorian 
 might have met with, His Apologies* in 
 which mod of His Records are to be 
 found, can fcarcely be fuppofed to have 
 been any of them. But to proceed, 
 
 SOCRATES being thus kt afidej as 
 for Sozomen, he Appears confiderably to 
 follow Socrates \ and by Confequence A- 
 THANAS1US, whom he followed: and 
 even Theodorit, who has been the moji 
 'Diligent and Faithful, and produced not 
 a few Copies of Original Records^ that 
 were omitted by the reft, does not feldom 
 follow and tranferibe from AT HAN A- 
 S1US alfo. So, it feems, They muft all 
 be thrown away together, becaufe they a- 
 gree with ATHANAS1US, and with one 
 another; that is to fay, Hiftorians muft 
 not be believed, becaufe they do not con- 
 tradict one another. And thus Thtloftorgi- 
 us being probably himfelf an Inaccurate 
 
 and 
 
1 4 A Defertfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 and "Partial Writer^ all the Hiftory wc 
 have of the Fourth Century, except the 
 little Eufebius has vouchfafed us, is to be 
 reje&ed at once, as of f mall Authority and 
 not to be relyed upon* and a new one 
 drawn up> much after the vaay of a Chro- 
 nique Scandaleufe^ grounded upon the 
 Authority of Conjectural Sufpicions by the 
 Accurate and Impartial Mr. Whiston. 
 So much for theEcclefiafticalHiftorians* and 
 as for Bafil, Nazianzen, and the like A- 
 thanajians, They are not to be regarded 
 in the lead, and that for this Weighty 
 Reafon-, becaufe they Either very Troba- 
 bly Might have , Or certainly had* their 
 Accounts from ATHANAS1US. But you 
 may pleafe to remember, that allowing 
 they had or might have their Accounts 
 from ATHANAS1US, yet they lived at 
 a time, when it was the eafieft matter in 
 the World for them to inform themfelves, 
 whether His Accounts were true; nay, 
 when it was almoft Impoflible for them 
 not to know it, without the trouble of 
 making any Enquiry; 1 muft alfo put you 
 in mind, that we have only your bare 
 Word for the Probability of this, and for 
 the Certainty of it, not fo much as that 
 Authority. I might add, if this Obferva- 
 tion of yours appeared to deferve fo lerious 
 an Anfwer, that all thefe Authors at the 
 fame time as they agree with ATHANA^ 
 
 S1US 
 
Mr. Whiftons Sufpcions. 15 
 
 SIUS enough to eftablifh the truth of His 
 Accounts* do alfo differ from Him often 
 enough, in fome little Circumftances, to 
 take away all Sufpicion that they Copied 
 after Him. 
 
 AND now If the Athanafians will put 
 *n fo much Impartiality, as to condefcend 
 to this Equitable way of Enquiry about 
 their Leader* you will join Ijjue with 
 them immediately : but if they perfift to re- 
 fufe this fair Method of Procedure* that 
 is. If they will not rejedt the Teftimony 
 ofATBANASIUS, becaufeit is the Tefti- 
 mony of a Knave in his \ own Caufe, and 
 the Teftimony of all Others, who Teftify 
 for Him, becaufe they do Teftify for Him* 
 You think it is to little purpofe to argue 
 with them concerning Him. This Confeffion, 
 from fuch an Adverfary, is fo clear a 
 Proof of ATHANASIUS's Innocence, 
 that it is impoffible for His greateft Admi- 
 rers to fay any thing more to His Advan- 
 tage : and indeed it is almoft enough to 
 make a Man fufpefr, that you have beei\ 
 diverting your felf all this while with 
 a very pleafant piece of Prevarication, and 
 have written all thefe Sufpicions* Obferva- 
 tions* Reflections, Tropo Jit ions* *Demon- 
 ftrations^ and Corollary s with adefign to e- 
 ftablilh ATHANASlUS's Reputation, by 
 (hewing how little could be faid againft it 
 upon any tolerable Grounds, For if this 
 
 be 
 
1 6 A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 be really your Cafe in Sober Sadnefs, that 
 you cannot hope to convift ATHANA- 
 SlUS unlefs this Tojtulatum be granted, 
 you might very well have fpared your felf 
 the trouble of writing the five and twenty 
 Pages which follow this Declaration * for 
 it is all to little Turpoje , by your own Con- 
 feffion* 
 
 IV, V. YOUR two next Obfervations 
 are fo exa£t a Repetition of your former 
 Objections, without taking the leaft no- 
 tice of my Anfvverstothem, that I cannot 
 conceive what you could propofe to your 
 felf by writing them-, unlefs it was to let 
 the World fee, that you are firmly refoU 
 ved to be Violently Sujpicious of ATHA- 
 jV^S7G 7 J, and very Tenacious of your own 
 Opinions, which moft People,! beheve,were 
 pretty well fatisfied of before. However, 
 when you very Gravely tell me that Tou mufi 
 own you can't believe your Sujptcions to be 
 Groundlefsj you will give me leave to own 
 too, that I cannot take that for a Reply: 
 Others may perhaps call it as full an ac- 
 knowledgment of your Miftakes, as was 
 expe&ed from you. For this iteddy Ad- 
 herence in the particular Cafe of Arfenius 
 you vouchfife to give this Reafon, that 
 you want fome better Evidence than A* 
 THANASlUSs; yet does there ?ioJuchE~ 
 vidence appear^ Out rather the contrary. 
 To this 1 reply, that we have the con- 
 current 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Suspicions, 17 
 
 current Teftimony of Ru firms ', Socrates*, 
 Sozomen ** Theodorit 4 , Lucifer Calarita- 
 nus f i Nazianzen 6 , Epiphanius \ and St. 
 Jerom 8 , the Confeffions of Patens and Ur- 
 fdrius in St. Hilary 9 , and the Synodical 
 Epiftle of the Council of Sardicam Theo- 
 dorit ,0 and Hilary " 9 wheie it is exprefs- 
 ly faid that Arfenius was then alive. 
 
 HERE, I think, is Evidence enough 
 to eftablifli the certainty of any ancient 
 Faft-, and, Iamfure, five times more than 
 we have or can have for ten thoufand 
 Fails, which yet we readily believe. 
 Whether this Evidence be better than A- 
 thanafius's, is another Queftion -, which 
 you fhall decide as you pleafe, and I will 
 Hand to your Decifion. If you determine 
 that all this Evidence is better than At ha- 
 nafiuss, we have, by your own Acknow- 
 ledgment, fome better Evidence than His, 
 that Arfenius was then alive: If you ra- 
 ther chufe to give it in favour of Atha- 
 nafius than to own this Miftake, and de- 
 termine that His fingle Evidence is better 
 than all this ^ it will follow that the con- 
 current Teftimony of Epiphanius, Nazi- 
 anzen, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodorit, Va- 
 lens, Urfacius, Hilary, Lucifer, Rufinus, 
 
 (ijH.E.l. 1. 017. (2)L.i.c. %x. (?) L. 1 i.e. 15.(4.} E.K- 
 1. I. c. 50. frjpag. 142, 6. (6) One. 21. p. 3S1. O. 23. p' 
 417-0.1$. p. 434. (i)Hxt. 68. p. 722, 4,5-. C8)Tom. 4. 
 par. 2. p. 47 1. adv. Rut. 1. 3. (oJFragm.co!. 41 1, 11. (10) ? . 
 77 (< 1)001.403, 
 
 B Jerom, 
 
1 8 A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 Jerom, HoJiuS) &c. cannot be compared 
 or opposed to Athanajiuss ; and that let 
 them all fay what they pleafe to the con- 
 trary, He is to be believed before and a- 
 gainft them all. 
 
 BUT, to deal Ingenuoufly, I muft in 
 part Retraft what 1 have (aid of thefe two 
 Ob(ervations% for in your fourth long ge- 
 neral Obfervation there are a couple of lit- 
 tle particular Obfervations, which, I muft 
 confefs, are fo far from being an exaft Re- 
 petition of your former Obje&ions, that 
 they are a direft Contradidhon to them. 
 The firft of them is thus ufhered in with 
 an Air of great Importance, NAT when 
 Bafil himfelf mentions "Dionyfius, as at 
 lajt Favouring the Confubftantiality, the 
 Circumftances and Contents of his Tajfa- 
 ges feem fo fairly to imply, that he had 
 this Account from ATHANAS1US, in 
 whom it is*, that he cannot* I think* be 
 alledged with any AJfurance as a fepa- 
 rate Witnefs from Him in that Matter. 
 However that be, you alledged him with 
 a very Good Affurance, I think, when 
 you pointed to the very Place where he 
 dire&ly contradicts what you cited him to 
 prove. Then, it feems, you was fo far 
 from making this or any other Exception 
 againft his Teflimony, that you appealed to 
 him as an Unqueftionable JVitnefs. But 
 now the Cafe is a little altered. TheOb- 
 
 jc£lion> 
 
Mr. Whiftoris Sufpicions* 1 5? 
 
 jeftion, which turned upon BaJiFs Differ- 
 ing from ATH A NASIUS, is now ground- 
 ed upon the Exa&nefs of their Agree- 
 ment. In your Suspicions, you made it an 
 Argument againft ATHANAS1US, that 
 His Account of this Matter was So Intire- 
 ly Contrary to Bafil y that no maimer of 
 ^Dependance could be had thereon- Inan- 
 fwer to This, I proved at large, that A- 
 7HANAS1US and Bafil agreed entirely. 
 And here, in Defenfe of your Sufpicions, 
 and in Reply to that Anfwer of mine, you 
 fay, They agree So Intirely, that Bafil feems 
 to have had his Account from ATH&* 
 NASIUS, in whom It is. 
 
 YOU have not yet thought fit to let 
 us know, what thefe Circumflances and 
 Contents of his Taffa^es are, which feem 
 fo fairly to imply that he had this Account 
 from ATHANAS1US, and to prevent your 
 giving your felf that unnecefTary Trouble, 
 1 mu(l defire you once more to run over 
 St.Bafifs Book Of the Holy Gboft, where 
 you will find, that he makes feveral Quo- 
 tations from the fecond of thofe Apologe- 
 tical Epifiles ; and the Pafiages he cites 
 not being in ATHANAS1US, it is plain 
 he had feen thofe Epifiles himfelf, and 
 that his account of c Dionyfius's < Do£iri7& 
 was from his own Knowledge , and not 
 from any Information given him bv 
 B 2 A* 
 
zo A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 ATHAKASIUS\ But to proceed* 
 
 MUCH lefs, you fay, can Eufebius's 
 mention offome of his Letters to his Name- 
 fake y about the Sabellian Herefy^ be quoted 
 to confirm the Jame : fince there is not the 
 leaft hint in him> that they really contained 
 fuch things as ATHANASIUS cites from 
 them. Here too your memory feems to 
 have failed you a little. You have forgot* 
 I prefume, that one of your Reafons for 
 Queftioning the Genuinenefs of thefe E- 
 piftles was their being wholly omitted by 
 Eufebius ; in Oppolition to which Afler- 
 tmp, 1 largely proved, that they were not 
 omitted by him, Beaten thus out of that 
 hold (inftead of Defending, or fairly Re- 
 tracing, what you then forafhly advanced) 
 you fly for Refuge to this little Exception; 
 as if it could be expe&ed, that Eufebius 
 fliould give us the Contents of thofe Let- 
 ters-) any more than of the others men- 
 tioned by hirn in the fame Chapter. 
 
 ygcc(peo j u/*jV xutk y xy^^t/i ra ^t^-ru. 7V-n>j$, <Pn<n> vrxeiv 
 
 <c N y.xvo¥X 7m£C-i*i)$0Tiq y o(Jbo^>eJ*u<i 77 uutzTs G&<TZv%X£4ftst77q, yjy 
 })} <£ tvf l(/jiv t7n?i)&ov7t$ x.x(3t7mv<rs(JUti' ttS j &sa *^ Tmrg/, >£ 
 vim tJ xv£ \<a iifjuui 'U<rv Xg^fT, (rut rt$ dytot TituKplt, fo'%x tyy 
 r.£xTcc, 5/5 T«? xlmxc, t uleJy&iv. -—'oqyif^ xa.iu (Attn* XX "$ 
 V&Qk Wntt tl^y.t G3&$ t»5 <m£iX\iXv& El tzS Tgslq ti*OA tu<; 
 '■scnTuour,, ptfAieMrifyixs tlvtu Xtyvn, i%ii$ tin xcc» p* S-iXumt, 
 v tkv Seiccv re/oi-ou 7ruv7iXv<; xitXi'moTtt* Ku) vrnXu' fyoiuT* 
 «j£, ^Jot -scurv, $ t)jk pomVa € i resdf* Baf. de Sp. San&o 
 c. 29. p. 3 ;8. 
 
 HERE 
 
Mr. Whi/lonV Sufpicions. n 
 
 HERE alfo I mufl Obferve, that you 
 all along miftake the Nature and Defignof 
 my Anfwers, and argue againft them no 
 otherwife, than as if every thing laid in 
 Confutation of any one fingle Objection* 
 was meant to be a compleat Demonftra- 
 tion of the main Point in Debate. Thus, 
 in the Cafe before us, you make my Proof 
 of Eufebius s mentioning thefe Epijtks to 
 be inconclufive, becaufe he does not tell us, 
 that they contained fuch things as ATHA- 
 N ASiUS cites from them : whereas my bu- 
 finefs there was, not to eftablifh their 
 Authority by any pofitive Argument, but 
 to refute that particular Argument of yours 
 againft them 5 myDefign was, not to con- 
 clude that they were certainly Genuin, be- 
 caufe mentioned by Eufebius ; but to (hew 
 that you had falfely concluded them to 
 be fpurious from Eufebius's filence. And 
 that I have there effeftually done, even to 
 your own Convi&ion, as you have thus 
 artfully and covertly thought fit to ac- 
 knowledge. 1 could eafily bring many 
 more Inftances, where you have Con- 
 founded your Self and your Readers, by 
 taking no Notice of this plain Diftin&ion, 
 particularly in your Reflections, as you call 
 them: but the Examples of it are fo very 
 Numerous, and the thing is fo Obvious of 
 it felf, that I think I may fafely leave it, 
 B 3 with 
 
it A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 with this fingle Precaution, to the Obfer- 
 vation of any Reader. 
 
 VI. YOU Obferve Sixthly, that the befi 
 Way the honeft Reader can take for his Satis- 
 faction in all Cafes ', is the Perufal of the 
 Original Books and Taffages themfelves, 
 and not of thofe accounts of them, which 
 modern Tarty -men afford him from them, 
 A very juft Obfervation this truly; but, 
 in my Opinion, a very ftrange way of 
 Replying. After you had affirmed A- 
 THANASlUS's youthful Treatifes to be 
 Arian, After you had engaged all your 
 Judgment in thefe Matters upon it ', After 
 1 had challenged you to maintain your Opi- 
 nion, and affert the Credit of your Judg- 
 ment ; it was a little furprizing, to fee you 
 content your felf with defiring the Cour- 
 teous Reader to fatisfy himfelf by his own 
 perufal of thofe Treatifes^ and not to take 
 any Athanafian Reprefentation in that Cafe. 
 It is true too , the judicious Reader had 
 much better perufe ATHAN ASIUSj Ora- 
 tions and 'Difcourfesiznd fee with his own 
 Eyes whether He reafons weakly or ftrong- 
 Jy, than take either your Word ox mine: But 
 you might have remembered, that whereas 
 there was only your bare Word on one fide 
 of the Queftion j I did not defire that my 
 Word y or even Thotius's, fhould be taken. 
 
 1 Containing as far as I can Judge, &c» Sufp. j. 
 
 To 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Snfpicions. 23 
 
 To the rafli Cenfure you had parted up- 
 on ATHANASIUSV Manner of Reafon- 
 mg> I oppofed indeed the contrary Opi- 
 nion of the beft Judges in all Ages* and I 
 flngled out Thotius for an Inftance, as 
 an Author, whofe Abilities and Imparti- 
 ality could not, I thought, be difputed by 
 any Man, who had any tolerable Preten- 
 tions to either of thofe Qualifications him- 
 lelf. The latter of them, I find, you are 
 by no means willing to allow him in this 
 Cafej fancying to your felf, I fuppofe, 
 fome Necerfity, that a Man muft think a 
 Book well written, becaufe he likes the 
 Subjeft - y and admire the firength of an 
 Author's Arguments, becaufe he fubfcribes 
 to the Orthodoxy of his Conclusions. 
 How far Thottus in particular was from 
 lying under any fuch Neceffity, and how 
 little reafon we have to fufpeet, that the 
 AfFe&ions of the Party-man imposed upon 
 the Judgment of the Critick, we may learn 
 from the Juftice he does to Eufebius's 
 Learning and Diligence at the fame time 
 that he calls him an Arian ■ : And he who 
 can fee, acknowledge, and applaud Per- 
 fections in an Adverfary, cannot well be 
 fuppofed (6 blinded with Prejudice, as not 
 to be able to fee the mod vifible Weak- 
 nefles in thofe of his own fide-, Prejudice 
 
 1 Vide Codd. 13, 27, 40. 
 
 B 4* naturally 
 
r *4 'A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 naturally working as ftrong the one way 
 as the other. Thotius therefore could not 
 be fo Prejudiced in Favour of ATHA- 
 NASIUS\ but that he might cafily have 
 difcovered the Weaknefs of His Reafon- 
 ings-> Efpecially if they were fo very Mifer- 
 able*> that he who has a mind to be anArian 
 needs but read over ATHANASIUS's 
 Orations again ft the Arians (which *Pho- 
 tius particularly and Highly Commends 
 for Solid Reafoning and Strength of Ar- 
 gument) to Convince him of the Indefenji- 
 bility of that Caufe '. If the Cafe be fo 
 indeed, you was very much in the right 
 to recommend the Perufal of thofe Ora- 
 tions: But Certainly he mud have a very 
 great mind to be an Arian* who needs no 
 farther Conviction than barely to fee, that 
 a Perfon of Little Learnings and one who 
 argues Generally Very Weakly* does not 
 argue ftrongly againft that Herefy* and 
 can immediately conclude that a Caufe is 
 Indefen(ible> becaufe it is but poorly de- 
 fended by a Miferable Reafoner. Neither 
 is it eafy to be Conceived, how fo Weak a 
 Reafoner fnould be able to deftroy the 
 Plain, Simple, Primitive Faith, and ad- 
 vance in its room a Metaphyfical Scheme 
 of Abfurdities, Contradictions, and Im- 
 poffibihties; and eftablifh it too fo firmly, 
 that it ihould be the Conftant Faith of 
 
 i Trim, Chriftian, Rcviv'J, v. 4. p- 131. • * 
 
 Chrift- 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. ij 
 
 Chriftians for fo many Ages, notwith- 
 ftanding the ExprefsPromifeofour Blefled 
 SAVIOUR to the Contrary: This, 1 fay, 
 is what I cannot well apprehend, and! am 
 apt to think you will find your felf as much 
 at a lofs how to account for it j unlefsyou 
 have recourfe to the Old Calumny, which 
 our Englifh Socinians have been before- 
 hand with you in Reviving-* that Athana- 
 Jius was a Conjurer, and fo make this Uni- 
 verfal Delufion the Effeft of His Magick 
 and Witchcraft. 
 
 YOU Proceed in the next place to ap- 
 ply your General Obfervation to the Par- 
 ticular Cafe of Ariuss 'Death, and to beg 
 of the Impartial Examiner, that he will 
 read the Three Epijlles of Athana- 
 jius to the Bijhops of Egypt and Lybia, 
 to Serapiony and to the Monks, before he 
 Juffers himfeif to be put upon by me ; the 
 two loft -mentioned of which Letters, you 
 fay, were fir ft written, whatever the Edi- 
 tors and others fuppofe. All I have faid> 
 relating to the Order in which thefe 
 Epiftles were written, is as follows; " But 
 "farther, to put it beyond all doubt, that 
 " this Caution was not meant of the 
 "Epiftle, or the Relation of Anus's Deaths 
 "All the World, I fuppofe, will allow, 
 "that if a Man defires 'to have a FalfeSto- 
 " 4 ry he has told Concealed, the proper 
 "time of giving that Caution is when he 
 
 firft 
 
16 A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 ^firft tells it: And yet Athanajius in 
 "His Letter to the ^Egyptian Biihops, 
 "where, according to Mr. Whijlon, He 
 "firft Difcovers the Secret of Arius's 
 " Death, puts in no Caution at all for Con- 
 cealment, but ventures it with them to 
 "Shew, and Copy, and Spread abroad 
 "as far as they pleafed \ Here, you fee, 
 I affirm nothing but only draw an Argu- 
 ment ad Hominem from what you had de- 
 clared to be your Opinion in that very 
 Sufpicion, which 1 was then Examining 1 . 
 And now after all, what if the Editors and 
 Others^ and, amongft the reft, the Author 
 of the Sufpicions-) fhould be in the right -, and 
 the Author of Athanafius ConviEled 'of For- 
 gery in the wrong ? The Reafon you bring 
 againft the Editors and your felf, to prove 
 that the Epiflle to the Bijhops was written 
 after the other two, is, that the Tlaineji 
 Chronological Character of 36 Tears after 
 the Condemnation of Anus by the Council 
 of Nice^ therein mentioned, implies it. 
 The words of Athanajius, from which you 
 draw this Conclufion, are thefe. Ou yzp 
 cArw l<n* yoyos' olM.' ol jl&jj <sj£? THrnnxatfa 
 
 1 Anjwer p. 79. 
 
 2 Yet twenty Tears afterward* is He forced to write an Ac- 
 count of it to the A?.gypt an Bt fhops, tofecure them to His own Or- 
 thodoxy : nay a little AFTER is He Again obliged, tho' with 
 i-rsat Reh'M.wcy t to write it more largely to Serapion, eye. Safp. 
 
 «?• P- 10 4- 
 
 xov(gi, 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufftcions. zy 
 
 jLdpiws vuuuqSb \ Hence you infer, that 
 this Epiftle was written 36 Tears after the 
 Council of Nice, that is, A. 361 ; which 
 1 am the lefs furprized at, becaufe this very 
 Paflage has led Cardinal Baronius x into 
 the fame Miftake, and, as Error is very 
 Fruitful in Propagating its Kind, into 
 another Miftake alfo about the Kite of the 
 Melitian Schifm. On the Contrary, I will 
 prefume to affirm, that the Condemnation 
 of Arias herein mentioned is, and necefia- 
 rily muft be, meant of his firft Condem- 
 nation by the Synod of Alexandria. I 
 think I may take it for Granted, that the 
 Words will admit of this Senfe, by di- 
 viding the Sentence with a Comma after cuge- 
 tdlq\, as it ought to be -> and that the Sen- 
 tence ought to be fo Divided, and the for- 
 mer Branch of it refer'd to the Synod of 
 Alexandria, and the latter only to the 
 Council of Nice, is, in my Opinion, De~ 
 monftrable by ieveral Undeniable Argu- 
 ments. 
 
 1. IF the whole Paflage belongs to the 
 Council of Nice, this Epiftle muft have 
 been written A. 361, which cannot pofll- 
 bly bej for, as the Benediftins have al- 
 
 1 Athanaf. Op. Tom. i. p 203. 
 
 2 Ann. 306, num. 44. 
 
 ready 
 
xS A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 ready obferved ', it is plain from the Epiftle 
 it felf, that it was written before George of 
 Cappadocia feized upon the See of Alex- 
 andria x > which happened in the Year 356. 
 This Argument of the Benediffins is far- 
 ther Confirmed by the Agreement betwixt 
 the Time when we fuppofe the Epiftle to 
 be written, and the time when the Coun- 
 cil of Alexandria was held, which, accord- 
 ing to the beft Conjectures that can be 
 made at this Diftance, was A. 320, to 
 which add the 36 Years here mentioned 
 and you have the true date of the Epiftle, 
 A. 356. This alone is fufficient to fhew, 
 that the Epiftle was written long before 
 361, and Confequently that the 36 Years 
 cannot be reckoned from the Council of 
 Nice, held A. 32^ Whence it is plain, 
 that the Sentence mult be Divided, and 
 understood as if Athanaftus had faid, " It 
 "is not of late that thefe two Sefts have 
 "began to difturb the Peace of the 
 ef Church j for the Melitians have been 
 "Schifmaticks thefe five and fifty Years, 
 "and it is no lefs than 36 fincethe Arians 
 <r were firft declared Hereticks (i. e. by 
 "the Synod of Alexandria) which Sen- 
 tence was afterwards ratified by the Ge- 
 "jieral Council of Nice. 
 
 l Monit. ad Epift. 
 
 % At» rSro you* £ L'teJgxov Xm «nJs KecTmthxitH ftH&ettnc- 
 Jfyai JeAvo*' w tinflfacH <z&\ Pfftftfi *. r. A. §. J- p- *77« 
 
 ATHA- 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. z? 
 
 2. ATHANAS1US, where He was pro 
 fefledly Obferving what a long time it was 
 iince the Artans were declared Hereticksi 
 would moft certainly begin His Com- 
 putation from their firft Condemnation: 
 But that they had been Condemned and 
 declared Hereticks by Alexander and the 
 Synod of Alexandria-, feveral Years before 
 the Council of Nice, is as plain, as that 
 there ever was fuch a Perfon as Arius. 
 
 3. WHENthis Epiftle was written, Leon- 
 tiusy the Arian Bifhop of Antioch, was 
 alive*, who dyed in the Year 358, if not 
 earlier, as Tagi has clearly proved 1 ; which 
 carries the Date of the Epiftle backward at 
 leaft as far as 358, and ihews at the fame 
 time, that the Condemnation of Arius 
 therein mentioned cannot poffibly be his 
 Laft Condemnation by the Council of 
 Nice y becaufe then that Council muft have 
 been held A. 322, which, as all the world 
 knows, did not meet till 3 Years after. 
 
 4. ATHANASIUS wrote this Epiftle 
 immediately after His flight from Alexan- 
 dria? before Georgius's Arrival, and He 
 continued in that Banifhment fix Years 3 ; 
 fo that if it had been written in the Year 
 361, He could not have returned till 367 ♦, 
 whereas it is Evident that He returned in 
 
 1 Epift.p. 277. 
 
 a Critic, in Baron. Tom. i. p. 487. 
 
 3 Vide Pagi. Critic, in Baron. Tom.i. p. 498, 9, 
 
 the 
 
jo A Defence of the Anfwer to 
 
 the Beginning of Julians Reign, A. 362, 
 which exa&Iy agrees with the True Date 
 of the Epiftle, A. 3 56, and utterly dcftroys 
 yours and Baroniuss. 
 
 f. IF the Dates of thefe Three Let- 
 ters could not be difcovered, we fhould 
 yet have aril the Aflurance in the World, 
 that the Epiftle to the Bijhops was writ- 
 ten before that to the Monks-, becaufe 
 when Athanajius wrote His Hijiory of the 
 Arians (to which the laft mentioned 
 Epiftle is an Introduftion) Georgius had 
 made his Entry into Alexandria ', which 
 he had not done when the Epiftle to the 
 Bi/hops was written, as has been already 
 obferved. 
 
 1 HAVE dwelt thus long upon the Proof 
 of this, not without fome hopes offatisfy- 
 ing you of your Miftake in this Point, 
 where you are fo very Pofitive, and upon 
 which too you was once in the Right, till 
 you found it Convenient for Athanafius's 
 Conviction to be in the Wrong i hopeing 
 alfo, that this might lead you into a Way 
 of Thinking, with which I am afraid you 
 are not enough acquainted, I mean, 
 that it might fuggeft to you the Neceffi- 
 ty of being more Cautious andjealousof 
 your felf, than to fufFer your Inclinations 
 to turn the Glafs for you, and reprefenc 
 Arguments to your View Magnified or Di- 
 
 i Hift. Arian. p. 374, 375> 3 8 ?- 
 
 mimihed 
 
Mr. Whiftons Suspicions. 3 1 
 
 minifhed, according as they make for, or 
 againft, what you have a mind to Believe. 
 BUT I have not yet done with your 
 fixth Obfervation. There, inftead of En- 
 deavouring to make good your Thirteenth 
 Sufpicion, you expe£i the Honeft Reader 
 fhoidd himjelf compare the Citations Atha- 
 nafius makes from "Dionyfius's Letters, with 
 the 'Dottrine of 'Dionyfius, as delivered 
 from a Compleat Knowledge of his Works 
 by Bafil. In your Thirteenth Sufpicion 
 you fay, the pretended Epiftle of c Diony- 
 fius is Intirely Contrary to the Known 
 'Doclrine of the fame TtionyfiuS) as we 
 are ajjnred from an Unqueftionakle Witnefs, 
 Bafil Himfelf In your Fourth Qbfervati- 
 on you fay, Nay when Bafil Himfelf men- 
 tions c Dio?ijjius as at lafi favouring the 
 Confiibftantiality y the Circumftances and 
 Contents of his Tajfages feem fo fairly to 
 imply, that he had this Account from At ha- 
 nafius, that he cannot be alledged with any 
 ajfurance as a feparate fVitnefs. This is 
 in the Sixth Page, and now at laft, no far- 
 ther off than in the Ninth Page of the very 
 fame Letter, Bafil Himfelf and you have al- 
 tered your minds again. Is it notftrange, 
 to fee fuch a Monftrous Heap of Contra- 
 dictions in an Argument agaifift the Au- 
 thority of < Dionyfius y s EpifHes, drawn from 
 their pretended ContradicJion to his For- 
 mer T^ocirinel Bafil is fir ft an Unquefii- 
 
 onabk 
 
3i A Vefenfe of the Anfouer to 
 
 onable Witnefs againft Athanafius, Then 
 he changes fides, and is become fo Clear 
 a Witnefs for Him, as to be except- 
 ed againft purely for the Exa&nefs of his 
 Agreement with Him; And hereof a fud- 
 den he tacks about again, comes over once 
 more to your Intereft, and Deferts his 
 Leader Athanafius. In the Thirteenth 
 Sufpicion, Bafil's Account is Contrary to 
 Athanafius s- y In the Fourth Obfervation, 
 it was taken from Athanafius > In the 
 Sixth, it was ^Delivered from a Compleat 
 Knowledge ofDionyfiuss Works. In theThir- 
 teenth Sufpicion, Bafil is appealed to as an 
 Unquefiionable Witnefs - y In the Fourth Ob- 
 fervation, the Hone ft Reader is Cautioned 
 not to take any Notice of what he fays 
 in that matter-, In the Sixth, it is Autho- 
 ritatively Expeffed, that he (hould himfelf 
 read his Account of that Matter, which 
 Account he had from Athanafius in whom 
 it is, in order to be Convinced, that 
 Athana[iuss Account of it is Falfe. 
 
 IF you could have gained an Advantage 
 againft Athanafius infinitely lefs than this, I 
 am very apt to think you would have Im- 
 proved it to Conviction upon Conviction 
 of His Knavery and Infincerity* Yet I 
 fhall not fo much as Endeavour 'to ground 
 a Sufpicion upon it, to your Difadvantage 
 in the Point of your Integrity. I had 
 much rather put it upon another Foot, and 
 
 Obferve 
 
Mr. Whifton / Sufpcions. 5 j 1 
 
 Obferve in Excufe for you (and it is, I 
 think, the bed your Cafe will bear) that 
 your Will is as Abfoluce over your Me- 
 mory, as over your other Faculties. But 
 to leave this Unpleafant Subject, 
 
 AFTER your many Requefts to your 
 other Readers, whom you Compliment 
 with the Epithets of Honefl> Judicious^ 
 and Impartial-, You 'Dejireof me, in T * ar- 
 ticular ', fome Certain Parallel fo Early to 
 the Famous Taffage concerning the Tri- 
 nity lately reftored by the BenediEtins. 
 Your meaning is, Iprefume, that this 2^/- 
 fdge contains an Explication of that Myfte- 
 ry Clear enough for the Fourth Centu- 
 ry, and that you cannot believe it was 
 written in the Third, unlefs fome Un- 
 doubtedly Genuine Tajffage, as Clear and 
 Full as this, be produced from fome Wri- 
 ter of that Age. To this I anfwer, 1. 
 that if this Way of Arguing be allowed 
 to be Good, it will be Impoffible to Prove* 
 that either the Orthodox Doctrine of the 
 Trinity, or yours, or any other, was 
 the Do&rine of the Firft Ages. For if 
 the Cleareft and fulled Teftimony muft be 
 thought Spurious, becaufe there are no 
 other fo Clear and Full 3 mod of them 
 muft be rejected in their turns, and the 
 Evidence on all Sides reduced to fuch as 
 iay the fame thing in the very fime words, 
 o which fort it is very Unreafonable to 
 
 G expect 
 
34 A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 expeft any Great Number. 2. If it was 
 always the Faith of Chrifiansy that there 
 is but one God, and that the Father is 
 God, the Son G0D5 and the Holy Ghost 
 God y what wonder is it, that T)ionyJius 
 (hould Exprefs this Notion fo Clearly •> un- 
 lefs you cannot conceive how a Bifnop of 
 Alexandria fhould be a Man of a Clear 
 Head, becaufe Athanafius was a Miferahle 
 Weak Re af oner* 3. Though, as I have 
 juft now Suggefted to you, this Taffage is 
 fufficiently defended by thofe Places in the 
 Writings of the Father s, which Prove the 
 Orthodox Do&rine of the Trinity to 
 be a ChriftianDodtrine-, yet, for your far- 
 ther Satisfaction, I will endeavour to let 
 you fee, that other Writers, not only of 
 the Third, but alfo of the Second, Cen- 
 tury, have fully and Clearly Expreffed this 
 Do&rine, as well as T)ionyfius ; and that 
 in Words as Determinate, and often the 
 feme, as thofe which were in more Gene- 
 ral Ufe in the Fourth Century, and which 
 you therefore call the Style of that Age. 
 
 JUSTIN M. who lived early in the Se- 
 cond Century, and, as Eufebius fays, not 
 long after the Apoftles ' (who was alfo, as 
 you fay *, fo Wife a Man, and fo Good a 
 Chriftian-, as not to mix his Thilojophy with 
 his Chrijlianity in thc/e Matters) in his 
 
 1 Mtr i nvXv t *Wa*"- £. H. 1. i f. c. 13. p. 4O. 
 
 2 Prin.it. Chrillun. Vol. 4. p. 128. 
 
 firft 
 
Mr. Whiftonx Sufpicions. 35 
 
 firft apology has thefe Noted Words. 
 
 'O/^oAoy^i^V TV roiaiav vofufyfjfyuav Sim ctStct 
 Svoj, olM* &%t V ctAvjOss^-rV — 3"€oJ* <xA\' eJt€«w 
 te, 59 t jtoc/) cluth i/iox 1\Qov^l — mG&iJta Te To 
 
 a^QeioL Tigris '. And in his Dialogue 
 with Trypho, towards the End z there 
 is this railage, to omit many others. Kca 
 Xoy»f JCS&ASJov, g-reJVj xotl tos ^©^c t£ ^ztT^o^ 
 
 C{JU\l04 QepU TQIS Cu9pC67fQi$' OLT/MUOV ^ >9 *Jfi*'*" 
 £A&V Ttf 7tU$QS ToUjtLu Tito ih/VoLfMV V7t<ipy6lV 
 OVtif 7£Q7?QV TO Ttf *|Aj8 <pot<71 $0£ 67Z7 >>}£ &- 
 
 focf ar^ai/ov ^ cLjgyi&Vg qvio$ tv yAis op to) j^- 
 f x^Jcf* 59 c&y Sha-yji cruvcfTto^ipiToui to <$£$• yraz 
 7[aTYip9 'o&v /28A)]To^, Xiyuai y ShycLfuv clvtoS 
 <vi£37m$)£v noiii' xj, otolv /38A>jtcu, ttxAiv olvol- 
 9eMe(V us eouiTDv. — 'AM' — oit <hiv<z/LU$ clvth 
 — &X> ®$ To $ ^ 8 ?^> fooftadt /now ^tO^Trocf, 
 clAAcc j£ S^fl^a gTEgov 71 gTZ, xj ci tojs ^Z^up^pSpois 
 D^< @pcf)gcQv r Ao^pjj gjj^fgttfw,, eiroy t Siutx/uuv Tctu- 
 tLu ytyivvyc&zi ^ttz too miTelsSifvifi&i jc, /SyAwau- 
 
 fta}S0$ 8GlCL$ i O ftlH<L TO oCTsAflt 7TO.V (& fJUct^\0 jUtyJX Xj 7i{JL~ 
 VOJiS/JX OV TOCtUTO^ Ct^Tre/VTyLMiSjJvar 3^/Q^t- 
 fityfJLOLlQS^ejlV 7KL§c',A'/l<$WTcL G)$'£m'XVpo$GLV&'nl6- 
 
 judyx tw^ gTTggo. opoojuSp, yfov IXol^v ji&ps tX4i~ 
 vtj> — aAAa toLvtoS /uSjavros. If Jufiin had 
 lived after the Council of A 7 /^, and de- 
 figned to Paraphrafe upon the Word 0^0- 
 
 8<jioj, and defend it againfl: the Cavils of 
 
 - — f -- 
 
 1 P. 11, 12. Ed. Grabe. 
 a P. 35-8, 9. Ed. Parif, 
 
 C x Here- 
 
3 6 A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 Hereticks, I believe he would have found 
 it Difficult to have exprefledhimfelf more 
 clearly. And accordingly, if Athanafius 
 had Quoted this Place, and the dialogue 
 had afterwards been loft, I don't know but 
 we might have had as Vehemerit a Suspi- 
 cion raifed upon it, as upon His Quota- 
 tions from Origen and Theognqftus. 
 
 THIS Taffage of Juftin being ma- 
 riifeftly levelled againft thofe Hereticks 
 who in the following Century were 
 called Sabellians; I (hall take Occafi- 
 on from it to Communicate to you 
 an Argument for the Antiquity of the Or- 
 thodox Doftrine concerning theTRiNiTY, 
 drawn from the Origin and Antiquity of 
 that Herefy. i am not fo Prejudiced in its 
 Favour, becaufe it is my own, as to fancy 
 it a THfccvery of the Laft Importance j 
 and yet I think there is fo much force in 
 it, as a Collateral Proof, that I am a little 
 furprized not to find that it, has ever 
 been ufed as fuch by the Learned Advo- 
 cates of the Nicene Faith. 
 
 THE Sabellian Herefy was invented to 
 reconcile the Belief of the Church, that 
 the Father is God, the Son God, and 
 the Holy Ghost God, with that 
 fir ft Fundamental Article of Faith, 
 that there is but One God. This they 
 thought could not be done, but by making 
 the Diftin&ion betwixt the Perfons to be 
 
 Purely 
 
Mr. WhiflonV Sufpicions. 37 
 
 Purely Nominal *, and Father, Son and 
 Holy Ghost only Different Namesgiven 
 to God in Scripture upon different Oc- 
 cafions, and in three different Refpefts^ 
 otherwife they thought it lmpoffible, that 
 the Myftery of the Trinity could be 
 conceived to be Confident with the Uni- 
 ty of the Godhead. That it was this 
 Attempt which gave Rife to that Herefy, 
 is fufficiently Plain from the Nature of the 
 Herefy it felf, and is alfo confirmed to De- 
 monftration from the Fragments of their 
 Arguments to be found in Ancient Wri- 
 ters, and other Teftimonies of the like 
 
 7w *<rs£«s ixXcc[A£x'vov7K$. Quarta Arian.Fid. Form. ap. Athan. 
 deSyn. p. 740. 'Ovo/tycoi "p. 2^$<p'o%o\<, Trurgys *g viev ffltf&itgtir' 
 7U, euaiu j) *? tswrfarrf s» ovnt. Eufeb. c. Marcell. i. 1 . c. 1. 
 p. 5". Ylc&tTK ffvy%ici>v, <& ivl yrgpy/wn tuq ^zccruq Trggcyip&tctf 
 cs§mjiiq, Baf. Horn. c. Arian. & Sabell. p. f2i. *£» sr^y^ 
 TFvXvavvpyv. Id.Ep. 64- p» lOO. 'E» ft/to! tJzjzsts&ozi Tgei~s orofyt- 
 cioui' Epiph. H. 62. p. 5" 1 3. C/ E» n ro/.<r.* ovlftpci KiKMWivot 
 
 Id. ib. p. f I 5' C E»i TtS \k7VK€if/*iVO> 7?Sl$ itpcCpfJj'o^QVTVq Gr&fftjpglctf. 
 
 Greg. NyfT. T. 2. p. 331. To% ivo/w<ri 2*/*;£o£»7?5 to iv vzn- 
 xtt/S/jor. Origen. Comment, in Matth. p. 470. Sola Nominis 
 Trinitas fine fubiiitentia Perfonarum. Aug.de Civ. Dei. 1. xl. 
 c. 10. Trionymam Solitarii Dei Unionem. Snip. Sev. p. 271. 
 Trinomium adferens Deum. Vigil. Tapf. c. Arium, Sabellium 
 6c Photinum. 1. 1 1 1. p. 1 88. Edit. Cbijfiet. 
 
 2 'E* [a rvj* 7mXcC4U, UC, TTZCTtpjt, VOtA£f)lT))VCM' c# j Ty x,cu»y\ 
 
 u$liov, &vctv6ga)7nj<rct4' aq TrviZf^. 3 ctjto*, 7iTq xpn<ji\oiq *7n0nT7)- 
 <rcu. Theod. Haer. Fab. 1. 1 1. c. 9. IJ&q iuq #£«'«$ tzuto xutciT' 
 to xccXisfyot. Id.ib. 1. III. c. 3. Kant twkm, imwlctq SjcfiQoggq, 
 i kxtu -vsrifutrii* Asyto^ Tmrt^, t§ via*. Origen. Comment, in 
 Joan. p. 186. Non diftindtione Generis> fed Officii permutati- 
 one. Vig.Tapf. p. 188. 
 
 C 3 nature 
 
3 8 A Defence of the Anfwer to 
 
 nature '. It is alfo very Eafy to prove that 
 this Herefy, which in the Third Century 
 took its laft and bed known Name from 
 SabelliuS) was Contemporary with the firft 
 Preaching of Chriftianity. In order to 
 that, if my Prefent Defign would admit 
 of it> I might foon trace it up from Sabel- 
 lius (by Taulof Samofata*, Noetus*, Be- 
 ryllus*, Cleomenes^ Epigonus 5 ><^£fchines 6 * 
 Traxeas 7 > Hermogenes 8 , Valentinus 9 , and 
 Others whofe Opinions are mentioned 
 
 l«», k. r. A. Epiph. H. 6a. p. 5* 1 3 . ' Otov ovvc&vjiiezo<ri tkti *? x- 
 
 n t$v<> ^»?j Id. ib. p. 514. Tzsm hsxet £ sra^.as 9?»s *ipA"> 
 aft? ihx, fycv, -—uvTvv 77zt7Tj?cfc & ItoJ, ocutvv liov* Id. H. fj. quae 
 eftNoet.p. 48 I .Mn irohvfyiotv qyriazivTo ci re <rsteci« «A>j3vkv$ tv/tq/.qIoi 
 4S&(r<Pigo\rn. Id. ib. p. 483. Volunt autera dogma fuum con- 
 ftituere 8c confirmare, quia eft in Lege: Non erunt Vobis Dii 
 alii praeterme. — Sic aiunt probare unum cfle Deum, & respon- 
 dent: fi Chriftum confitemur Deam, igitur ipfeeft Pater, iieft 
 Deus. Hippclyt. de Myft. Incarn. c. Haer. Noet. ap. Bib. PP. 
 Max. T. 3. p. 261. Ergo inqais, ii Deus dixit 6c Deus fecit ; 
 fi alius Deus dixit, & alius fecit 5 duo Dii praedicantur. Tertull. 
 c. Prax. p. 643 . EuZa.GvfJt'ivix A'o oliccp§iZ<rccf Ji^5, Orig. Com. in 
 Joan. p. 46. A&< mbvfyiott •fyi^ol kutuXithIv tu 9*oy^n^t. Greg. 
 Naz.Orat. i.p. 16. Ne gentili errore duos Deos adiererecon- 
 vincamur. Vigil. Tap/, p. I 25. <J>o£a» tol I' foxw fovrsojv t!tn}yH*% 
 fyv. Eufeb. de Ecclef. Theol. 1. 1. c. 3. p. 62. Nam fi aliter 
 dixerimus diccmnr Multicolae. Augujl. de Quinque Haer. p. lo\ 
 Unius Naturae probabili quidem confefTione deceptus. Vigil. 
 Tap/. 1. 1 1. con. Eatych. p. 14. 
 
 (i) Epiph. H. 65. Philaftr. H. 64. Athanaf. 8c Naz. pafiim. 
 (3) Epiph. H. si' Philaft. H. 53. Aug. H. 36. Theod. Haer. 
 Fab. 1. 111. c. 3. (4) Euf. E.H. l.vi.. c. 33. (f) Theod. H. 
 F. 1. 1 1 1 . c. 3. (6) Auft. Catal. Haeret. adfixi Tertull. de Prae- 
 fcript. Haeret. p. 154. (j) Tertull. c. Prax. Philaft. H. 5-4. 
 Aug.H.41. (8) Phil. H. 5-4. Aug. H. 41. (9) Iren.p.138. 
 Ed. Grab. Athanaf. adv. Apollin. 1. 1 .p. 93 1 J. 1 1 . p. 949. 
 
 by 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sujpicions. j«> 
 
 by Ecclefiaftical Writers without mention- 
 ing their Names') as high as Simon Magus ; 
 who, as he is often called the Author of 
 all Herefies * 5 was moft certainly the Au- 
 thor of this, as is Evident from his own 
 Words 3 , as well as what is faid of him by 
 Irenteus 4 , Epiphanius 5 , Cyril of Jerufa- 
 lem 6 , Thilaftrius 7 ) St. Aujlin*, Theodo- 
 rit 9 , and Joannes T^amafcenus '°. What 
 I would infer from thefetwo Propofitions 
 is this* that as the Herefy propagated by 
 Sabellius about the middle of the Third 
 Century, which confided in an Oppofiti- 
 on to the Dodtrine of Three Real and 
 Diftinft Perfons in the Un i t y of the God- 
 head, is a manifeft Proof that That was 
 the Do&rine then received among Chrifti- 
 ans : fo the fame Herefy in the Main being 
 advanced from time to time by Men of Cor- 
 rupt Minds from the very Age of the A- 
 poftles, is a Plain Evidence that the fame 
 Dodtrine fo Oppofed was the Succefllve 
 Faith of the ChriftianChurch derived down 
 from the Apoftles, and not an Invention of 
 Later Ages formed at laft into a Mighty 
 
 (i) Interp. Ignat.Epift. ad Phil. p. 100. adMagn. p. 147. Ed. 
 Vojf. Origen. Comm. in Joan, p. 24, 4v46, 186. 6c in Matth. 
 p. 470. (i) Eufeb. E. H. 1. 1 1. 01 2. Cyr. Hier. Catech. vi . 
 p. 8- Iren. paffim. (5) Simon Samaritanus haec quoque inter 
 cactera in fuis Voluminibus Scripts dimittens: EgofamSERMO 
 Dei, —Ego PARACLETUS, Ego Ommpotcn$.Hieronym. Com. 
 ad c. 24. Matth. ap. Grab, in Spicileg. (4) L. 1 . c. 20. (f) 
 H.21.P.55. (6JCatech.vi.p. 87. (7JH.29. (8)deHaer. ad 
 Quodv. (9)H,F.l.i.c.l.fio)deHaer.p. 28j. ap. Coteler. Mon. 
 
 C 4 Scheme 
 
40 A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 Scheme by Athanafius in the Fourth Century. 
 But to leave thisSubjeft for the prefent, up- 
 on which I may perhaps give you my 
 Thoughts more at large fome other time* 
 I heartily ask Pardon for this Digreffion, 
 and Proceed. 
 
 ATHENAGORAS in his Apology, 
 prefentcd to the Emperor, according to Mr. 
 *Podwett S in the Year i68> many Years 
 before either 'Dionyfius or his Malter Ori- 
 gen was born, is very Clear and Exprefs 
 when he has occafion to fpeak of the 
 Trinity, of which take thefe few Inftan- 
 ces. *Em oVta too 7RtT£cs xai t£ ui£' 
 
 m xj foiviau w&yuL-njs \ Can any thing be 
 more full and fatisfa&ory than this? if any 
 thing can be, it is what follows in the very 
 next Section, where he has thefe Noted 
 Words 3 , T& Sv One ^brc/wo-aj \ey>vru$ Sea -ml^ 
 
 T6£^5 Xj VIQV 5*^39 ^OufM^CL^iOyydeiyjlWTGLSOL-JTUV 
 
 tIw dv rvj hoo<r{ $iw3L{JUVy Xj t^o gy tw tdl^u h- 
 <ypi.<nv, culvozls kQevs ^Ab/AWj What could 
 AtfoanaJiusUimklfhzve fa id more or Clear- 
 er? Neither is what follows much lefs 
 
 Clear, El fovea lis v\ 5" 7iaiSo$ <t$£js ' tdV t^ltcPu, 
 « / / « i» \ \ \ * \ / / 
 
 MOTHS, TL$ 71 TOO 7WLT^0S <Z$£JS TCV ViOV XOlVMiOL, 71 
 
 to >m6\j/JbX) ti$ yi tw towt&v 'evcoais xj oJ^iptois' 
 
 ('J Differ tat. Cyprian. DifT. XI. §.37. p. 261.(2) Legat.p-38- 
 Ed. Ox. (3) lb. p. 40. (4) lb. p- 4^- 
 
 And 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. 41 
 
 And in another place, 'Llsyxpydv <J>ol/uS^ ym 
 viov r Aoy>v ctvri *j nv&jfjLoL ctyiov, hbfx\ux jx $$;* 
 
 $IWX/XIV, T 7^tTipXy T VIOV, TO 7r\t£(X0L* %tt vS$, AG- 
 
 y>$, avcptx, vios, too imrtqi? ^ ^nzppolxy cc$ pate 
 ~£jn> 7mpo$, to mSC/Acc '. And again, Oujtgmev 
 iOeoi, 3"eo^ cLy>{\i$ r TroiyjTnv roZd\ £" tcclUqs, *x) t 
 *7cxp ctvrou \oy>v \ 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANT>RINU5, 
 whofe Scholar Origen was c DionyJi,is's 
 Mafter ? , has ofcenExpreflions full and Clear 
 enough for the fourth Century, as well as 
 
 ^ionyfius. O S&os Xoy>^ o (panptt'OcTos ovlas Sw, 
 ot& JWwni Tw o\ccv efyjuQus 4 . Uxvlox^ciropx 
 5eov \oy>v s . Tav ov/xtcolvIm ^tov %ol (xovov ei^oq — - 
 t/iov c* vtovrex <a w db>ot e<s t«£ caoovcu, . Tie xocj 
 *7COirn\p, hcL t u0a, XAJ&Z 7 . T<£> /uxva tcxt^A ty i^i 
 
 \\to £ TTaT^ — OI>V Tffl cl>*ft> 7lvS\jfiOLTl' WC&vlcL TO) 
 6V/, %OV GO TOL 7CXVTCL' 0) 7\ dO^X, 54. T. g. °. iO 
 
 thefe I might add many more, if you were 
 not already forced to own the Extrava- 
 gancy > as you call it, of Clemens' s Novel 
 ExpreJJions -, which, you fay, were not re- 
 lifted or entertained by the Church inthofe 
 days 9 . Evidence , Original Evidence is 
 what you always call out aloud for : you will 
 give me leave therefore, I prefume, to ask 
 you upon whofe Authority you ground 
 this Pofitive AfTertion. The Name of any 
 
 (i) Legat. p. 96. (2] lb. p. 122. ($) Euf. E. H. 1. vi. c. 6. 
 (4) Protrept. p. 68. (?) Paedagog. p. 226. (6) lb. p. 119. 
 (7 J lb. p. 266. (2) lb. (9) Prim.Chrijffan.Rev. Vol. 4. p. z. 
 iand Append, p. 15 . 
 
 one 
 
4z A Defenfe of the Anfover to 
 
 one A ntient Writer, of that, or any other* 
 Age, who has faid this, or any thing like 
 it, would be a Great Satisfaction to me. If 
 you cannot oblige me in this matter, I 
 fhall only Obferve how little Reafon you 
 of all Mankind have to complain of the 
 Lofs of Old Books, who have fo little 
 Need of them, as to be able to know, and 
 ajjuredly proyiounce^ what was Said, Done* 
 and even Thought in the Second Century 
 without the Leaft Affiftance from any 
 Books or Records whatfoever. 
 
 TERTULLIAN>Clernenfs Contempo- 
 rary, writes (till much more like an Au- 
 thor of the Fourth Century. Hunc ex 
 Deo prolatum Didicimus, &: prolatione ge- 
 neratum, Sc idcirco Filium Dei, &Deum 
 diftum ex Unitate Subftantiae. Nam & 
 Deus Spiritus. Et cum radius ex Sole por- 
 rigitur, portio ex fumma* Sed Sol erit in 
 radio, quia folis eft radius, nee feparatur 
 fubftantia, Jed extenditur (^t^cutvvo/uS/j ift- 
 cupflov) Ita de Spiritu Spimus, & de 'Deo 
 1)eus, at lumen de lumine accenfum. A- 
 pologet.c. XXL p. n.Diim UnicumDeum 
 non alias putat credendum, qnamfi ipfum 
 eundernque Patrem 8c Filium &: Spiritum 
 Sanctum dicat : quad non fie quoque U- 
 nus fit Omnia, dum ex Uno Omnia, per 
 Hub ft ant iae fcilicet Unit at em, & nihilomi- 
 nus cuftodiatur oeconomiaeSacramentum, 
 quae Unitatem in Trinitatem difpo?iit,Ttzs 
 
 diri- 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. 43 
 
 dirigens — non Statu? fed Gradu ; nzcSub- 
 flantia, fed forma 3 nee Poteftate, fed fpc- 
 cie: Unius autem Sub/lantiae y & Unius 
 Status, & Unius Poteftatis. Quomodo 
 autem Numerum fine c Divifione patiuncur, 
 procedentes Retradtatus demonftrabunt. 
 Contra Traxeam, c. II. p 635. Numerum 
 & 'Difpofitionem Tr ink at is c Divijionem prae- 
 fumunt Unit at is) quando Unit as ex (emet- 
 ipfa derivans Trinitatem^ non deftruatur 
 ab illa> fed adminifiretur. lb. c. III. p. 
 63 f. Filio & Spiruu Sanfto, Confortibus 
 SubftantiaeTatris. lb. c. III. p. 6$6. Fi- 
 lium non aliunde deduco, quam de Sub- 
 ftantia Tatris. lb. c. IV. p. 636. Haec 
 erit Probola Veritatis 5 Cuftos Unit at is , qua 
 prolatum dicimus Filium a Patre, fed non 
 Separatum, lb. c. VIII. p. 639. Trinitas 
 
 & Monarchiae nihil obftrepit, &: Oeco- 
 
 nomiae Statum protegit. lb. c. VIII. p. 
 640. Infeparatos ab alterutro Patrem &: Fi- 
 lium & Spiritum teftor. lb. c. IX. p. 640. 
 Quando Scripturaeomnes &c Demonftrati- 
 onem & Diftinftionem Trinitatis often- 
 dant. Ib.c. XL p. 642. Site adhucNu- 
 merus fcandzlizztTrinitatis, quafinonaw- 
 nexae in Unitate fimplici, &c. lb. c. XII. 
 p. 643. Secunda Terfona* Sermo Ipiius.- 
 ScTertia, Spiritus, lb. Ex Unitate Trinita- 
 tis loquebatur. lb. Alium Terfonae^ 
 
 non Subftantiae, nomine -, ad Diftin&ionem* 
 non ad Divifionem. Ceterum etfi ubi- 
 
 que 
 
44 A Defenfe of the dnfwer to 
 
 que teneo Unam Subftantiam in Tribus 
 Cohaerentibus, &c. lb. Duos tamen Dcos 
 & Duos Dominos nunquam ex ore noftro 
 proferimus ; non quafi non & Pater Deus, 
 & Filius Deus, & Spiritus San&us Deus, 
 & Deus Unufquifque. lb. c. XIII. p. 644. 
 Redatturn eft jam Nomen Dei & 'Domi- 
 ni in Unionem (jtyw rejoiShi ^i\iv iw /tw- 
 vslPvl <ruFte<p*\cus(jLz5cL) lb. Sub manifefta & 
 fPerfonaH Dijlinttione. lb. c. XV. p. 646. 
 Ex Deo Deus. lb. c. XV. p. 647. Pacer 
 & Filius duo, & hoc non ex Separatione Sub- 
 ftantiae, fed ex Dilpofitione &c. lb. c. XIX. 
 p. 6ji. Salva Unione Divinitatis. lb. c. 
 XX. p. 651. UnumfumuSjdicens, often- 
 dit Duos efle quos aequat-, & jungit. lb. 
 c. XX11. p. 654. Manifeftam fecit duarum 
 Terfonarum Conjunttionem. lb. c. XXIV. 
 p. 657. Troprietatern Utriufque *Perfonae. 
 lb. Ita Connexus Patris in Filio, & Filii 
 in Paracleto, Tres efficit Cohaerentes, al- 
 terum ex altero, §lui Tres Unum flinty non 
 Unus. Quomodo didtum eft, Ego & Pater 
 unum fumus \ ad Stibflantiae Unit at em^ non 
 ad numeri fmgularitatem. lb. c. XXV.p.657. 
 Didin&ione Patris 6c Filii, quam manente 
 Conjundtione difponimus. lb. c. XXVII. 
 p. 6f9, Videmus Duplicem Statum, non 
 confufum, fed Conjuntiam in Una Terfo- 
 na Deum & hominem. lb. c. XXVII. p. 
 660. Pater & Filius & Spiritus Tres Cre- 
 diti Unum Deum fiftunc. lb. c.XXXI. p. 
 
 663. 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufficient* 45 
 
 663. I have been thus Long in my Quo- 
 tations from Tertullian* becaufe many of 
 them may be applied to a Purpofe of 
 much greater Moment than barely to Con- 
 firm the Authority of Ttionyfius's Let- 
 ters, At prefent I fhall only defire you to 
 compare the Laft of them with an Anno- 
 tation of your own, Trim. Chriflian. Rev. 
 Vol. iv. p. 48, 9. There you fay, that to 
 call the Father* Son, and Holy Ghofl* One 
 Gob is a ftrange Way of Speaking* not 
 to be traced much higher than the Lat- 
 ter days of Athanafius ,• whereas here* 
 you fee, it is ufed by Tertullian an Hun- 
 dred and Fifty Years before that time. 
 He does not only fpeak as if he thought 
 fo, as you after endeavour to bring your 
 felf off-, but exprefsly Affirms it, and that 
 in fo many words. 
 
 CTTRIAN fhews himfelf in feveral 
 Places to be no Stranger to the Word 
 Trinity* or the Orthodox Do&rine ex- 
 prefled by it. Thus, in his Book T>e ldolo- 
 rum Vamtate-y Hie in Virginem illabitur; 
 carnem, Spiritu Sanfto cooperante, indui- 
 tur. c Deu< cumhomine mifcetur. HicT>eys 
 Nofler, Hie ( hnftus eft * And in his 
 Famous Book *De Unitate Ecclefiae* Dicit 
 Dominus: Ego & Pater Unumfumus.ET 
 lTbRUM DE PATRE ET FILIO ET 
 SPIRIT (J S \ NCI O SCRIPTUM EST: 
 
 * P. ij. Ed. Ox! " 
 
 ET 
 
46 A "Defence of the Awfwer to 
 
 ET HI TRES UNUMSUNT; & quif- 
 quam credit Hanc Unitatem de "Divina 
 Firmitate venientem, Sacramentis coelefti- 
 bus cohaerentem-, fcindi in Ecclefia pofTe 1 ? 
 And in his Treatife De Oratione 'Domi- 
 nica, In orationibus vero celebrandis inve- 
 nimus ObfervafTe cum Daniele tres pueros 
 in fide fortes, 6c in Captivitate Viftores, 
 horam tertiam, fextam, nonam, Sacramen- 
 to Jcilicet Trinitatis , quae in noviffimis 
 temporibus manifeftari habebat. Nam & 
 prima bora in tertiam veniens confumma- 
 turn numeram Trinitatis ojiendit. Itemque 
 ad fextam quarta procedens declarat 
 alteram Trinitatem. Et quando afeptima 
 nona completur, per ternas horas Trini- 
 tasperfedtanumeratur: quae horarum fpa- 
 tia jampridem fpiritaliter determinantesad- 
 oratores Dei, Statutis & Legitimis ad pre- 
 cem temporibus ferviebantj Sc manifefta- 
 ta poftmodum res eft Sacramenta olim 
 fuijje, quod ante fie jnfli precabantur \ In 
 his Little Tra£b 'De Bono Tatientiae Our 
 BleflTed Saviour is called our God and our 
 Lord, Jefus Chriftus Deus & Dominus 
 Nofter^ which words are repeated in his 
 LXIII. Epiftle to Caecilius 4 . And in the 
 Noted Epiftle to Jubaiantis^ Ite ergo & 
 docete gentes omnes, baptizantes eos in 
 nomine Patris & Filii & Spiritus Sanfri. 
 Infinuat Trinitatem^ cujus Sacramento Gen- 
 
 (0 P. io 9 , (r) p. if3»4- ($) P- 2*2. (4) p. US. 
 
 tes 
 
Mr. Whiftons Sufpcions. 47 
 
 tes Baptizarentur. Nunquid hanc Trini- 
 tatem Marcion tenet *? And a little far- 
 ther. Si peccatorum remiffam confecutus 
 eft> & fanfrificatus eft, & templum Dei 
 faftuseftj quaerocujusDei? Si Creatoris, 
 non potuit qui in eum non credidit: fi 
 Chrifti, nee hujus fieri poteft templum, 
 qui negat T)eum Chriftum,: fi Spiritus 
 Sanft^cumTRES UNUM SINT, quomo- 
 do Spiritus Sandtus placatus efie ei poteft, 
 quiautPatrisaut Filii inimicus eftf ? And 
 again in the fame Epiftle, Quando ipfe 
 Chriftus gentes baptizari jubeat in Tlena 
 & AT>UNATA TRIN1TATE J. 
 
 IF for One Inftance T>efired as Early as 
 'Dionyjius, fo many Earlier will not fatis- 
 fie you ; I have yet one Witnefs more in 
 Referve, and that is Ttiony/ius Himfelf: 
 and if you will not take His Word for His 
 own Style* I muft defpair of giving you 
 any Satisfaction in this matter. If you 
 pleafe to confult His Epiftle againft Taul 
 of Samofata, with His Anfwers torheTen 
 Queftionspropofed by that Heretick, you 
 will find that He expreftes Himfelf there 
 after the fame Manner as in His Epiftles 
 to 'Dionyfms of Rome, oh JVk ijoflnb $ 
 
 ctyito rTvOv/UAL-n. A p. Labbe Cone. Tom. i.p. 
 85^3. Els '6&v X^^, iff di> TQ'TrciTZAZuv- 
 
 tUitoS Ao^S, €» CLVTH <Z3£J<Ttt7toV, £6 patios OiOS, 
 * P. 20o. f P. 203. f p. 106. 
 
 lb. 
 
4$ A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 lb. Tov cLKTi<&v xca S\ifuspy>y» lb. 'O/zoscnov 
 
 TO) TTCLT& li§r/U$/JQV t \JuR) T <ZT)\m TCCLTiptM. lb. p. 
 
 cos fflKj ovvdli'hos rob ywn<m>J\os. lb. p 864. A 1 ] 
 d'^o r \1^2^9t5tffr($ d^ZAW, x.cti To ghv7?1$vltov toc> 
 *pct$o$ mBo/JUt. lb. p. 86f. O cii^7D9aTDj aw 
 fi)f X^*** ** oIovstS ^ttcltca >cj v to aVa^Maxlo/ 
 
 /UOLTZ. lb. 0sO? >«p l(TpGL7l\ IYjOVUS <ZS£J GUjQVCCV 
 
 Xoysi as % to kyioj twOo/uz. lb. p. 873. 'Ex. 
 t>?5 r^jGTDFzusas to$ veatfios \ywy$v\. lb. p. 889. 
 Learned Men, 1 confefs, are divided in 
 their Opinions concerning the Authority 
 of this Letter, fo that I cannot offer itas 
 an Uncontefted Proof in the Prefent Cafe. 
 Harduin ', Valefius \ and Ruinart 3 , ab- 
 folutcly rejeft it: Bp. STILLING- 
 F L E ET* 9 Bp. BULL ', Baronius 6 , 
 Labbe 7 -> and Turrian, who firft Publifhed 
 it, receive it as Genuine. T)u Tin 8 > 
 though he Determines nothing, feems ra- 
 ther inclinable to think it Spurious: Dr. 
 Cave 9 , and Tillemont ,0 , though they alfo 
 Determine neither way, feem rather Dif- 
 pofed to believe it Genuin. In order 
 therefore to fatisfy our felves what Weight 
 
 (1) Not. in Epift. Chryfoft. ad Caefar. p. 241. Op. Seleclr. 
 (2) Annot. in Eufeb. p. 139. (3) A&a Martyr, p. 187. (4) 
 Vindication of the Do&rine of the Trinity, p. 35. {%) De- 
 fenf. Fid. Nic. §.II. c. xi. p. 148, 9. (6) Ad Ann. 265. n. 5. 
 266. n. 2. (7) De Script. Ecclef. T. 1 . p. 2j"S. (8)Nouvelle 
 BibliothequcT. 1. p. 190. (9) Hift. Liter. Vol. 1. p. 97, 8. 
 Vol. p. 53. 4. (icO Memoires T. 4. part. 2. p. 606. 886. 
 
 the 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpcions. 49 
 
 the Paflages I have cited from it may be 
 allowed to have in the prefent Difputc, it 
 will beNeceflary to enquire a little into the 
 Reafons which thofe Learned Men, who 
 rejeft or fufpeft it, have given for their 
 Opinion. 
 
 THE Chief Objection againft this Let- 
 ter and the Anfaers to Paul's Queftions 
 is, that in the Synodical Epiftle of the 
 Council of Antioch it is exprefsly faid, 
 that They had written to c Dionyfius, and 
 that 'Dionyfius upon the Receipt of their 
 Letters had written back to Antioch, buc 
 Directed His Letter to the whole Church 
 (or the whole Province, rw tc^ow.cl ttxo-^) 
 not to Tauh in which too He had not (a 
 much as honoured him with a Common 
 Salutation '. 
 
 THIS Argument is Hiftorically mention- 
 ed by Dr. Cave x zndTzllemont 3 ,and urged by 
 5Du Tineas of Great Force,and by Valefius * 
 as Decifiveand Unanfwerable. But in the 
 firft place, as Bifhop Stillingfleet 6 and 
 
 Jiovvnot iv¥ st* t>is dte^ctvfyeiets., Kj <PiQ[AiMctro» tb» ±jtz t«s y&x- 
 'zmfoitlxt' ol>r $j tm'sriXev &<; rifl civna%esKV i lit iysyjorx 7K$ 
 
 uX^ci Ttf yrufipty-lu rnx<rv[. Ap. Eufeb. E. H. 1. vii. c. 30. p. 
 zz8. fed. Valef.' 
 
 (i) H. L.V.i. P . 97. V. 2. p. jj, (3)? p. 887. (4) p» 
 190. (f) p. 1 39. (6) It's iaid indeed, that He did not writ* 
 to him, i. e. He did not direct it to him, but He might fend it 
 to the Council in anfvrer to his Letters which He mentions* 
 ffaj. p. jf. 
 
 D fit- 
 
5 © A Defenfe of the Anfwev u 
 
 Tillemont ■ have in part Obfervcd,the Letter 
 only can be affe&ed by this Obje&ion, and 
 not the Anfwers to TauPs Queftions. For in 
 Thofe He very often fpeaks ofTaul in the 
 Third Perfon, and under no more honoura- 
 ble a Name than that of the Samofatenian-, 
 and when He does addrefs Himfelf to him 
 in the fecond Perfon, He is far from ex- 
 preffing any the leaft Refpeft by it> but 
 does it generally after the fame manner as 
 we often find in Controversial Writings, 
 efpecially where the Point in difpute is of 
 Great Importance, and the Difputants 
 Warm and Zealous, as c Dionyfius particu- 
 larly fhews Himfelf through the Whole 
 Courfe of thefe Anfwers. An Apoftrophe 
 in fuch Cafes is a very Common Figure, 
 and it muft be allowed to be much more 
 Natural and more Ufual for a Man in the 
 Heat of Argument to turn his Difcourfe 
 to his Adverfary, than in a Letter to fpeak 
 fo frequently of him to whom the Letter is 
 written in the third Perfon. So that the An- 
 fwers might be a Part of the Letter fent to 
 Antiochy or at leaft annexed to it by Diony- 
 
 (l) L'Obje&ion qu'on tire du Concile peut ne regarder 
 meme que la lettre a Paul. Car pour la reponfe aux Objecti- 
 ons, elle parle d'ordinaire de Paul comme ne s'addreifant a 
 lui, & elle ne le marque que par le tirre de Samofateriten : de forte 
 que fi elle lui parle quelque fois, on- voit bien, que ce n'eft 
 point par honneur : maiscommeon aaccoufumedeparler aceu* 
 que Ton combat. Ainu" cette piece, qui eft beaucoup plus 
 longue que l'autre, pourroit avoir fait partie de la lettre mar- 
 quee par le Concile d'A«tiochc, ou y avoir ete jointe.p. 887,8. 
 
 JiuSy 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. j i 
 
 JiuSy in order to confirm the Council in their 
 Zeal againftP^'sHerefy by the Strength of 
 His Arguments, as well as the Authority of 
 His Name and Character. And \{theQuefti- 
 ons and Anfwers be Genuin, I think there 
 can be Little Reafon to doubt but the Epiftlc 
 is fo too - y it being not only dire£Hy pointed 
 to in Paul's Introdu&ion, but alio cited 
 and refer'd to in every one of the Quefti- 
 onsj and in feveral of 'Dionyjiuss Anfwers. 
 BUT let us Confider the Confequence of 
 this Argument. It proves indeed that this 
 Letter is not that which is mentioned in 
 the Synodical Epiftle, in Oppofition to 
 Bp. Bull * and Baronius f , who thought 
 it was : But becaufe THonyfius, after He 
 was fully fatisfied of fWsObftinacyand 
 Heretical Pravity, refufed to Countenance 
 him fo far as to Salute him in a Let- 
 ter written to the Church of Antioch\ 
 does it therefore follow, that He ne- 
 ver had any Diipute with him before 
 that time by Letters, according to the 
 Cuftomofthat Age, and o$ c Dionyfius Him- 
 felf in Particular ? Eufebius 5 affures us, 
 that feveral Synods met before this Affair 
 of *Paul could be determined, and why 
 might not this Letter be written at the 
 time of one of thofe Synods, or before 
 any of them ? T>ionyJius upon the Rife of 
 
 * P. 148. f An. 266. n 2' ^ Kxtu xcu^m 2^<^» 5 (aut 
 sU-V'S**) *j *»»«««• E. H. 1. vr i.^c. 28. 
 
 D 1 any 
 
5 % A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 any Herefy, was always Ready with the 
 firit to oppofe it. The Nepotians, the 
 Sabellians, the Novatians> had fcarcc time 
 to adjuft their Heretical Schemes, before 
 He was prepared to confound them. And 
 where is the Abfurdity of fuppofing, that 
 He had as much Concern for the Salvati- 
 on of Souls, and as Warm a Zeal for the 
 Purity of the Faith at the time when Taul 
 endeavoured to corrupt it, as He had lately 
 fhewn in Oppofition to the other Hereticks 
 above-mentioned -, finceit is confefled that 
 He heartily detefted Paul's Herefy, and 
 He could not but thinlcit much more Im- 
 pious than the Herefy of Nepos or No- 
 vatzan, and not lefs Impious than the 
 Herefy of Sabellius, as indeed it was very 
 nigh the fame; the Difference betwixt 
 them, if any, confiding rather, as it ap- 
 pears tome, in their Different Way of Ex- 
 plaining the fame Notions, or at leaft in 
 Different Confequenccs drawn from them, 
 than in the Original Notions themfelves? 
 UPON the whole matter, this Paflage 
 in the Synodical Epiftle, in all the Force 
 which 1 can conceive it to have, isfo very 
 Weak and Inconclufive an Argument a- 
 gainft this Letter, that it may be faid to 
 make rather for it than againft it* fince 
 'Dionyjiiis was much more likely to put that 
 Affront upon a Man of whofe Heretical O- 
 pinions He had been fully convinced from 
 
 his 
 
Mr. Whifton's Sufphions. 55 
 
 his own Writings, and whom He had in 
 vain endeavoured to reclame, than upon a 
 Man charged with an Herefy which he 
 would not own. For we learn from En- 
 febius * and Theodorit -f and feveral other 
 Authors, that Paul did all he could to con- 
 ceal his True Sentiments, which Tjionyfius 
 accordingly complains of in His Letter, and 
 labours to extort from him a Plain Con- 
 feflion and Acknowledgement of his No- 
 
 tions. 
 
 IT is alfoObje&ed by Valefius* Ruinart* 
 and Du Tin y that the Style of this Epiflle 
 differs from < Dionyfius y s Style in His other 
 Epiftles. But Judgments formed of Books 
 from their Style are generally lb Uncertain 
 and Precarious, and depend upon fuch 
 Nice and Slender Notices, that he who 
 will determine a Book to be Genuin or 
 Spurious upon fuch Grounds muft be Con- 
 tent to Judge for himfelf only, and allow 
 the fame Liberty to other Men, whether of 
 a more Refined or a lefs Diftinguiiliing Tad 
 than himfelf. Bp. Stillingfleet therefore 
 does not think fit to be fo Pofitive in this 
 matter. He willnot take upon him to Judge 
 how far it differs from His Style in other E- 
 fifties s but yet readily declares, that the T)e- 
 fign is very agreeable to an Epiftle from Him 
 on that Occafion. And indeed it is fo ve- 
 ry Difficult to determine any thing with 
 
 *L.vn.c. 28. f Haeret.Fa'i.l. n c. 8. p. 223 \ 
 
 D 3 Cer- 
 
5 4 ^ Defenfe of the Anf-wer to 
 
 Certainty this way, that I believe I might 
 Undertake to (hew as Great a Difference 
 of Style betwixt the Acknowledged Ge- 
 nuin Works of the fame Author, as is of- 
 ten made Ufe of by Griticks to prove a 
 Book Spurious. No Man does, or can, 
 always write exactly after the fame Man- 
 ner. Proficience in Knowledge, Honour, 
 Difgrace, Profperity, Adverfity, the Na- 
 ture of the Subject, the Prefcnt Temper 
 of a Man's Mind, His State of Health, 
 Age, and even the Agreeable or Unplea- 
 fam Situation of things round about him, 
 will naturally have a Great Influence over 
 his Way of Thinking, and that will as Na- 
 turally (hew it felf in his Way of Writing. 
 Befides, there is a great deal of difference to 
 be made in the prefent Cafe betwixt fuch Au- 
 thors, as, having fpent a Great Part of their 
 Youthful Studies upon forming their Style, 
 Write afterwards for Reputation, and con- 
 fequently with Great Care and Exaftnefs ; 
 and fuch as neither regarded nor underftood 
 the Beautiesand Ornaments of Style. Any 
 thing afenbed toOne of thefeElaborateWn- 
 ters is much more Eafy to be Diftinguiflied 
 by its Style, whether Genuin or not, by the 
 moreArtful or moreNegligent Conftrudion 
 andTurn of itsPeriods,by theGreater orLefs 
 Purity or Strength of the Words, &c.but 
 with refpeft to the other fort of Writers, 
 and of thofe more particularly moft of the 
 
 An- 
 
Mr. Whifton 9 s Sufpicions. 5 5 
 
 Anticnt Fathers,all thefe Helps are in a great 
 meafure Wanting, and Confequently it is 
 much more Difficult to determin of the 
 Writings which go under their Names, 
 which are Genuin and which Spurious, from 
 Obfervations made upon their Style. And 
 this is yet more difficult in the Cafe of 
 'Dionjjius, becaufe he has left us fo very little 
 to form a Notion and Chara£ier of his Style 
 by. 
 
 FROM thefe Reflexions upon the Dif- 
 ficulty of proving a Book Spurious by its 
 Style, 1 would not be underftood to ac- 
 knowledge, that there is any fuch Difference 
 here as is pretended betwixt the Style of 
 this Epiftle, and of c Dionyfiass other 
 Writings; For I muft fay with Mr. Title* 
 wont *, He who has fatisfied himfelf of 
 this Difference muft have examined the 
 matter much more Carefully and Exactly 
 than I can pretend to have done. But let it 
 be Granted that fome Difference may be 
 found y wherein does this Difference con- 
 fift? Is this Epiftle not foEafy and Intel- 
 ligible, as His other Epiftles ? That, if it 
 really be fo, may very well be charged up- 
 on the want of MSS. to collate withZ^r- 
 rians Copy •, fince it is feldom or never 
 known that a fingle MS. preferves the True 
 Reading throughout, and Falfe Readings 
 »' — — — 
 
 * Ceft ce qu'il faudroir Examiner avec plus de foin que 
 nous n'avons pu faire. p. 887. 
 
 D 4 ge- 
 
5 G A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 generally perplex and Obfcure the Senfe 
 and Style. Or is his Style here more lax, 
 and his Reafonings lefs Clofely Couched 
 than in fome of his other Writings? That 
 too, if True, befides that it is Natural 
 enough to any Man in an Occafional E- 
 piftle, may alfo very fairly be accounted for 
 from IDionyJius's Extreme Old Age. 
 
 IT is fartherQbje&ed tharTW sNotions 
 are reprefented here after a Different Man- 
 ner from what they are Generally thought 
 to have been. But it is not c Dionyfiuss 
 fault that People will Generally content 
 themfelves with a Superficial and imperfeft 
 Knowledge of things. It is not very Eafy 
 indeelto getaTrueand Compleat Notion 
 ofthe;a;e>i* Jty/^'&, the Real and Original 
 Errours, of the Antient Hereticks-, fo as 
 to be able exa£tly to diftinguifh betwixt 
 their firft and Fundamental Tenets, and 
 fuch Confequential Opinions as flowing 
 Naturally from the Others, and being 
 more Impious and more Odious, were 
 chiefly obj.e&ed to them by the Ortho- 
 dox > either to give other Chnftians a 
 Greater Abhorrence of their Herefies, or 
 to Convince the Hereticks themfelves of 
 the Falfehoodof their Principles from the 
 Blafphemy and Impiety of the Confe- 
 qucnces which neceffarily followed from 
 them. This, I fay, is not very Eafy, but 
 he who will not be at the Pains to lay the 
 
 feem- 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. 57 
 
 feeming Different Accounts of Differenc 
 Authors together, and examine them care- 
 fully, muft not venture to pronounce aBoolc 
 Spurious, becaufeit does not exa&ly agree 
 with an Opinion which he has taken up 
 without due Confideration. 
 
 IN the Epiftle and Anfwers Paul is repre- 
 fented to acknowledge the Divinity andE- 
 ternityof theAojp*, and this indeed may 
 perhaps feem ftrange to thofe, who know no 
 more of Paul's Herefy, than that he affirmed 
 our Saviour to be a mere Man. <( How was 
 <c it Poffible,that Paut could at the fame time 
 <c hold the Son of God to beEternal, and our 
 'Saviour a mere Man? It cannot be the 
 " Great ^Dionyfius^ who would obtrude fuch 
 " Contradictions upon us. Itmuft certainly 
 " be fome Ignorant Impoftor, who took up- 
 •* on him to perfonate the true THonyfms&wd 
 <f to write an Epiftle for Him again!! Paul 
 fC of Samofata* without knowing any thing 
 l< of Paul's Opinions. But thisConclufion 
 is a little too hafty. What if we fliould 
 liippofe that Paul, after the Example of 
 Praxeas and Valentinus ^, divided Jefus 
 and Chrift, and made Jefus a Mere Man 
 in which Cbrift* or the Eternal Aoy>$ y in- 
 habited? If this Suppofition be admitted, 
 the Difficulty immediately vanifhes ; and 
 this was really the Cafe, as we learn not 
 
 * V.Tertull. c. Prax. p. #59. & Ireq. paflim. 
 
 only 
 
58 A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 only from this Epiftle, but alfo homEpi* 
 phanius *j% and many other Writers. And 
 hence it is that Thotius * and others make 
 Neftorius to have borrowed his Herefy 
 from Taul of Samofata. 
 
 THIS Impious Divifion of our Blefled 
 Saviour's Perfon, and the Confeffion of 
 the Eternity of the Aojp$, are the Only 
 Notions 1 can find mentioned or fuggeftea 
 in the Epijile or Anfwers, which can pof- 
 fibly be fuppofed to clafh with the Ac- 
 counts given of Taul's Opinions by other 
 Writers. And as we have the Concurrent 
 Teftimony of the Bed Authors that both 
 thefe were really Taul's Opinions j fo, by 
 the help of the Former, the Latter is very 
 Eafily and Naturally Reconciled to that 
 Blafphemous and bed known AfTertion 
 of his 5 that our Saviour was a Mere 
 Man. Befides, after all if we fhould 
 allow that Taul's Notions are not repre- 
 sented here exa&ly after the fame manner 
 as by fome other Writers, that would af- 
 ford but a very Weak and Inconclufive 
 Argument againft the Authority of this 
 Epiftlej lince we find many Contradicto- 
 ry and Inconfiftent Notionsinthe Ancient 
 and Modern Herefies, and we are particu- 
 larly aflured that Taul ftudioufly endea- 
 voured to conceal Kis Real Opinions. 
 HAR DUIN goes drill farther, andven- 
 
 f 11. 6j. p. 6o8> <5i*> 617, fcalib? * Ep. 35! 
 
 tures 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Suspicions. 5 57 
 
 tures to affirm very Pofitively, that this is 
 the Work of fome Raft ally Eatychian f Buc 
 what may we not expect from a Man, who 
 will Undertake to Demonftrate the Doctrine 
 of Tranfubftantiation from St. Chryfoftom's 
 EpittletoCaefarius? That Learned Jefuit 
 has not given us the Leaft Reafon for this 
 Cenfure, and therefore I fliall content my 
 felf to Obferve, that though there fhouid 
 be found in this Epiftle fome Expreffions 
 which may feem to favour the Eutychian 
 Herefy, that would not be a fufficienc 
 Reafon for rejecting it* fince there arefe- 
 veral PaflTages of the fame Nature in the In- 
 difputably Genuin Works of Antient Or- 
 thodox Writers, who never ^Dr earned of fuch 
 Opinions^ and therefore could not particu- 
 larly guard againft them in their Expref- 
 fions. Befides, T>ionyfius in this Epiftle is 
 arguing againft Taul's Notion that the &iy>* 
 was not united in the fame Perfon with 
 the Humane Nature, but only dwelt in it 
 for a time - y fo that it was Natural enough 
 for Him, in the Heat of Difputation and 
 Oppofition, tvT cLfjttT&ci Trig idoXxXs, to let 
 fall Expreffions which might feem too Fa- 
 vourable to the Contrary Extreme, as He 
 had done before in His Difputations againft 
 the Sabellians, by the Confefllon of Bafd 
 and Athanajius. 
 
 f Nebulonis alicujus Eutychiani Sanufiaftae Figmentum. Not* 
 in Ep.Chryf. p. 24.1. 
 
 ANO- 
 
Co A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 ANOTHER Argument brought againft 
 the Authority of this Epiftle is, that if it 
 had been Genuin, Athamjius would mod 
 certainly have made fome Quotations from 
 it in His Defenfe ofDionyfius. But* with 
 all due Submiffion and Deference to the 
 Judgement of thofe Learned Men who 
 infift upon this Obje&ion, I muft beg leave 
 to fay, that if fuch Negative Arguments 
 be allowed to have any Great force, few 
 Antient Writings, Ecclefiaftical or Pro- 
 fane, will bear fo fevere a Teft. Might 
 not the Epiftle be Genuin, though Atha- 
 nafius had never fo much as heard of it ? 
 Or where is the Neceffity of fuppofing, 
 that He muft have heard of it, if it had 
 been Genuin? The Gonftant Oppofition 
 and Perfecutions of the Hereticks of His 
 own time allowed Him but little Leifure 
 to be very Curious in His Search after Pri- 
 vate Letters written againft former Here- 
 ticks, and addrefled to Particular Perfons. 
 Or if He did know of this Epiftle, what 
 Neceffity was there for His Citing it, af- 
 ter He had fo fully Confuted the Objections 
 againft 'Dionyfius from what T^ionyfius 
 himfelf had wrote purely to Clear and Ex- 
 plain the Paftages in his former Writings, 
 upon which thofe Objections were ground- 
 ed? This was a full and Decifive Anfwer, 
 md it was not Athanafiuss Manner to 
 
 heap 
 
Mr. Whifton'j Sufpicions. Gi 
 
 heap up Unneceflary Arguments, or to 
 trouble His Readers with a Multitude of 
 Quotations in a Clear Cafe, which He al- 
 ways particularly avoided. 
 
 IT is alfo Objected by 'Du Tin, "That 
 rf the Author of this Letter approves of the 
 <f word oftotmosy and fays that it has been 
 cc applied to our Saviour by the Fathers; 
 tc Whereas it is Certain that T>ionyfius and 
 e< the Council of Antioch Difapproved of 
 "that Word, and that it could not befaid 
 "in Dionyfiuss Days, that it had been com- 
 "monly ufed by the Fathers. To thefirft 
 Branch of this Obje&ion I anfwer, that it is 
 fo far from being Certain, that c DionyfiusDi^ 
 approved of that Word, that it is Certain 
 from His Apology jhatHz did not difapprove 
 of itjbut ufed it Himfelf.The Council o£An- 
 tiochjt is true,reje£ted it,and they alfo aflure 
 us in their Synodical Epiftle, that "Diony- 
 Jiuswas of their Opinion as to the Impiety of 
 ^Paul's Herefy : but this is no Argument that 
 He joyned with them in fetting afide that 
 Term, which was done after His Death, 
 and not becaufe even they Difliked the 
 Word it felf, when rightly underftood, or 
 the Doftrine it exprefled, but to prevent 
 Unneceflary Cavils and Exceptions ; for 
 which Reaibn it is probable enough that 
 'Dionyflus Himfelf would have con- 
 fented to their Determination againft jr, 
 if He had been prefent at the Council, 
 
 not- 
 
Gz A Vtfenfe of the Answer to 
 
 notwithftanding His Former Approbation 
 of it. And if T>ionyJius had really been 
 prefent and Confented to this Determina- 
 tion, even in that Cafe we could not have 
 concluded that He Difliked the Word be- 
 fore He knew of any bad ufe made of it: 
 much lefs therefore can we draw this Con - 
 clufion from a Refolution which the 
 Council of Antioch came to after His 
 Death, upon the Particular Occafion of 
 the Abfurd and Impious Senfe fixed upon 
 that word by Taul in order to Obftrudt 
 and perplex their Proceedings s efpecially 
 too fince we are aflured from c DionjJius , s 
 Undifputed Writings (I mean as to thofe 
 who make this Obje&ion) that he did not 
 difapprove of it, which mud at once fi- 
 lence a thoufand Conjectural Arguments to 
 the Contrary. 
 
 THE Second Part of the Objeftion is, 
 "that it could not be faid in T)ionyfiuss 
 <f Days, that theWord o^oimos had been com- 
 * monly ufed by the Fathers. Mr. T)u Tin, 
 by the little I have feen of his Works, feems 
 to be a Fair and Candid, as well as a very 
 Learned, Writer; it would therefore be 
 highly U njuft to accufe him of Inferting the 
 word Commonly with a Defign to give his 
 Argument the Appearance of more 
 Strength than it can poflibly have : but I 
 muft Obferve however that the Author of 
 the Epiftle fays no fuch thing, but only 
 
 that 
 
Mr. Whifton's Sufpicions. £5 
 
 that the Word had been ufed by Holy Fa- 
 thers of the Church, o/m&tw upuMvi ^jeto 
 r kyim trcLTlgw *• And that the word had 
 been fo ufed, to omit many other Proofs, 
 we have the Exprefs Teftimony of Eufe- 
 bius himfelf in the following well known 
 Paflage, TSv tccl\cum wis \oylv$ x) 'GStztpcuiiis 
 '(faG-toTts^ x) ai>yfet.<pect4 'lym/dp *Ckl *? V na.- 
 7£o$ xj t[<5y 5eoAo>tct$ rco rod c/xqugis /fflottjufyutss 
 ivofictTi *f% 
 
 IT is farther Objefted, that thisEpiflle 
 has not been quoted, or mentioned, by 
 any Writer, or ever heard of, before it 
 was publiflied by Turrian. I don't Under- 
 ftand, I muft confefs, how any Man can 
 truft his Memory, or his Common- place 
 Book, fo far as to affirm this with any Cer- 
 tainty. However, allowing it to be fo, 
 againft a fet Treatife published and ad- 
 drefled to the whole World this Argu- 
 ment may indeed have fome Weight, 
 though even in that Cafe Reafon and Ex- 
 perience fliew that it will not always bold: 
 but againft the Genuinenefs of a Private 
 Occafional Fpiftle, which might lye neg- 
 lefted and Unknown many Ages, it is, in 
 my Opinion, very Inconclufive. 
 
 AND after all, this Epiftle is not fo plain- 
 ly Deftitute of External Teftimony as is pre- 
 tended ; (inccT heodorit allures us, that 23/0- 
 
 * Pag. 8/tf. 1 Ap.Socr.I.x. c. 8, p,i2. 
 
 njjms 
 
6 4 A Vefenfe of the Anfaer to 
 
 nyfius did write to Tattlin order to reclame 
 him, as well as to the Council *. And the Au- 
 thor of the Epiftle to the Clergy of Ter- 
 jia, under the name of Athanafmsf, men- 
 tions this Letter to Taul, and fubjoyns a 
 Copy of it, though a very faulty and Im- 
 perfect one. The Age of this pretended 
 Epiftle to theTer/iaris is very Uncertain: 
 but the Latin Verfion of it is Anttent^ in 
 the Opinion of the Beneditlins -, the Origin 
 nalGreek therefore might very well be much 
 more Antient. But however, as this can 
 not amount to any thing like a dire£t Po- 
 sitive Proof* that 'Dionyjiuss Letter is Ge- 
 nuin •, fa, I think, it muft be allowed at 
 leaft to prove, that Turrian was not the 
 firft Man who ever heard of it. 
 
 THESE are all the Objeaions I 
 can meet with againft this Epiftle, which, 
 if Genuin, is moft Certainly a very Valua^ 
 ble Monument of Antiquity -, for which 
 Caufe I was the more willing to examine 
 into the Reafons alledged to prove it Spu- 
 rious. Much more might have been faid 
 to invalidate them : but I fear, as it is, I 
 have been too Long in this Digreflion. 
 Upon the whole matter, I would not be 
 thought to Interpofe my Judgement in this 
 
 * Aj« 5 y^fAfJuxrui tmUot 7mPv[vt<rE to* <ztf9<fyKovTU> >§ rut 
 
 Hacrct. Fab. 1. n. c. 8. p. 222. 
 I Op. Athan. Tom< a. p. 71 5. 
 
 Affair : 
 
Mr. Whiftonx Sufpiciont. 6$ 
 
 Affair : all I defire is, that the Reader 
 would weigh the Objections and the An- 
 fwers I have fuggefted to them together > 
 and as either are thought to prevail, lee 
 the Credit given to the Quotations I have 
 made from this Epiftle be Greater, or 
 Lefs. 
 
 THUS far however I am fecure as to 
 the main Point, that as we have many Cer- 
 tain Tarallels to the Taffage reftored by 
 the Benedi£lins> in c Dionyfiuss Other 
 Writings, if this Epiftle and the Anfwers 
 toTauVs Queftionsbe Genuin-, fo though 
 they fhould be fet afide as Spurious, yet 
 thofe Taffages of the very fame A polo- 
 getical Epiftle, which I have already quot- 
 ed from St. BaJil*,v/ho> you know, had^ 
 Compleat Knowledge of < \Diony(ius > s Works* 
 muft be allowed to be above any Excepti- 
 on. Thofe Taffages indeed do not give us 
 quite fo Diftin&and Clear a Defcription of 
 the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, 
 as That to which you dejtre a Tarallel: yet 
 fince they give lis the only Words in that 
 Tallage, which can be fufpedled not to 
 have been in Ufe in the Third Century, 
 (juvcls and t^os, and contain the very fame 
 Do&rine of the Trinity, which is more 
 Diftinftly Exprefled in the others no Un- 
 prejudiced Perfon can doubt but he w T ha 
 — i -■..,. 
 
 * F. 20, 
 
 E wrote 
 
C6 A Defenfe of the Atipwer to 
 
 wrote the Tajfages cited by Bajil, might, 
 upon a Proper Occafion for it, exprefsthe 
 fame Dodtrine as Clearly as in that which 
 is cited by Athanafius. And if there can 
 be any Occafion, more Proper than ano- 
 ther? for a Man to exprefs himfelf, upon 
 any Subjefr, as Diftin£Hy and Determi- 
 nate^, as he poflibly can* 'Dionyfius had 
 moft certainly fuch an Occafion upon that 
 with refpeft to the Trinity in an 
 Apology written purpofely to clear himfelf 
 from the Charge of Heterodoxy as to that 
 Article* which had been brought againft 
 him from his Unguarded and Incautious 
 Expreffions in his former Writings. 
 
 AFTER this follows another Requeft 
 to the Gentle Reader, with relation to 
 your Sixteenth Sufpicion : but I have been 
 already fo Long upon this Qbfervation* 
 that 1 ihall referve the Confideration of it, 
 till I come to your Reflection upon my 
 Anfwer to that Sufpicion. 
 
 Vll. YOUR n^tObfervation, I find, 
 is wholly taken up with the Life of An- 
 tony, from which you had drawn before 
 the Longeft, and, in your own Opinion, 
 the Strongeft, of all your Seventeen Sufpi- 
 cions. For the Credit of the reft there- 
 fore, one would think you fhould have 
 faid fomething in Defenfe of it : but in 
 Head of that, we have nothing here but 
 New Obje£tions, and thofe 3 if it bepofii- 
 
 fole„ 
 
Mr. Whifton * Sujpicions. Cj 
 
 ble, ten times Weaker than the Former. 
 However, fince this is the only Article, 
 upon which you have thought ht to pro- 
 duce any of the Great deal of Evidence 
 you have in referve for the Further Con- 
 fir mat ion of your Snf pic ions , Your Ar- 
 guments (hall be Confidered in their 
 Order. 
 
 i. YOU Obferve, that the Miracles 
 of Anthony have fo Evidently tended to 
 Support Notions and T radices, that have 
 no Foundation in the Earliejl Antiquity-, &c* 
 that there is the Greateft Occafion Imagin- 
 able for Sufpicion about them. And here if by 
 thefe Notions and Tra5tices you mean the 
 Modern Monkery, as you call it, I refer 
 you to what I have already faid as to that 
 Matter in my Anfiwer : but if you mean 
 Modern Orthodoxy, as you rather feem to 
 do, I muft take the freedom to tell you, 
 that this is no better than begging the 
 main Queftion. For unlefs Orthodoxy be 
 Antichriftian<> I defire to know why An* 
 Tony's Miracles are to be fo Vehemently Sufi- 
 peeled for tending to fupport it. Nay, 
 allowing it to be as Great a Cor- 
 ruption of the Primitive Faith as you 
 pleafe, allowing it to have b^en introduced 
 by the Devil, according to a Certain Au- 
 thor -, yet you know the fame Modsft Au- 
 thor f Obferves, that the 'Devil made life 
 
 f PrirrwChriftian. Vol 4. Append, p. 19* 
 
 E 3 of 
 
6 8 A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 0/Teveral Good things for the fupport 
 of it, fuch as the Honour of the Son of God 
 a?id- of His Holy Spirit ; fo that you need 
 not deny the Truth of thefe Miracles, be- 
 caufe they have tended to the fupport of 
 the Aihanafian Here/}, unlefs you will al- 
 io deny that any Honour is due to the Se- 
 cond and Third Perfons in the Trinity, 
 for the fame reafon. 
 
 2. THESE Miracles, you fay, werefirfi 
 pretended to at a time when the Old Mi- 
 racles of the G of pel were fo far Ceafed, Sec. 
 So far Ceafed is an OddExpreffion, and, I 
 think, not very Eafy to be Underftood. 
 If in your Philofophical Enquiries you have 
 ^Difcovered Degrees in deflation, and 
 mean that the Old Miracles were in a Great 
 Meafure ceafed, though not quite (befides 
 that this is not only Gratis *Di£lum, but 
 alfo contrary to all Ecclefiaftical Hiftory) 
 why mud Antony's Miracles be thought 
 the Wonders of a Lye, becaufe they were 
 -pretended to at a time when the True Mi- 
 racles were not fo frequent as they had 
 formerly been ? If you mean that They 
 were quite Ceafed, your Argument will be 
 fo far the better, that the Gonfequence 
 will be Undeniable-, for then you may 
 eafily Demonftrate that Antony V Miracles 
 were Falfe, if it be granted you, 
 that they were pretended to at a time 
 when True Miracles were ceafed. 
 
 j. THESE 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. g$ 
 
 3. THESE Miracles Generally belong 
 to fuch Defert T laces, where little Good 
 Evidence was to be Expected^ and are 
 faid to be Chiefly done among fuch Ig- 
 norant and Superftitious Monks, that there 
 is the Great eft Occafion Imaginable for 
 Sufpicion about them^ and by Confequence 
 about their Hifiorian Athanafius, i opafs 
 over the Abufive Epithets, which you 
 have here very Charitably and Judicioufly 
 beftowed upon a Number of Men chat 
 you know very little of-, It is not, 1 think, 
 the Greateft Wonder Imaginable, that An- 
 tonys Miracles fliould Generally belong to 
 fuch Tlaces as he Always lived in, and 
 be Chiefly done among Juch Men as he 
 Chiefly Converfed with. I muft alio Ob- 
 ferve to you, that Athanafius' s Honefty 
 does not depend fo much upon the Pro- 
 bability of thefe Miracles as you Imagine, 
 and by Confequence you was quite miftaken 
 in the State of the Cafe, when you was 
 Gracioufly pleafed to give the Reader 
 leave to fuppofe Athanafius Honeft, upon 
 this Equal Condition, that he will believe 
 the Legend. For though we fliould al- 
 low, that fome of Antony's Miracles are 
 Improbable, his Life may yet be written 
 fincerely by Athanafius. tie vouches for 
 but one of thefe Miracles, as done in His 
 own Prefence : and for the reft, His 
 Knowledge of Antony's Piety, and His 
 
 E 3 Pre- 
 
70 A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 Prejudice in favour of His Friend might 
 very eafily induce Him to receive them, 
 upon the' Credit of thofe Monks from 
 whom He had His Accounts. Add to this, 
 that there was in thofe Early Ages of the 
 Church as General a Difpofition to be- 
 lieve fuch Miracles - y as there feems to be 
 in this Free-thinking Age, to rejeftand Ri- 
 dicule them. Whether they were too 
 Credulous, or we rather too Sceptical, or 
 Both, 1 am not at prefent concerned to 
 Enquire. It is fufficient for my Purpofe, 
 that the Cafe was fo, and that the molt 
 Judicious Men of thofe times readily re- 
 ceived fuch Stories of this Nature, as will 
 not now pafs with a Vulgar Underftand- 
 ing. And befides this univerfal Creduli- 
 ty, if it mud not be thought to deferve a 
 better Name, Athanafius knew Antony to 
 be a Man of Eminent Piety -, He knew, that 
 if a Man be a Wcrfmpper of GOT), and doth 
 His Willy him He heareth -, He had alfo ken 
 one of Antony 's Miracles with His own 
 Eyes j All which Coniiderations put toge- 
 ther might very Naturally Incline Him to 
 Believe fuch things of Antony^ as may 
 feem very Improbable to a Man, as much 
 Prejudiced Againft him, as At hanafms could 
 be in his Favour. 
 
 VIII. YOU Obferve htt]y that I have 
 given a Bad Chara&er of the Synod of 
 
 Tyre. 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpictons. 71 
 
 Tyre. Really, Sir, I have fo ; The Faftl 
 confefs, but want to lee the Crime. 
 
 ANT) now, Sir, Having Diipatched your 
 Treliminary Qbfervations* 1 come Co \ 
 you call your Reflections, 111 which you 
 pretend to give an Account of my An- 
 fwers to your" fevei'al Sitfpicions, fometimes 
 with Great Wit and Pleafantry, andfome- 
 times in Sober Sadnefs. 
 
 I. THE Sum of my Anfwer to your 
 Firft Snfpicion, you fay, comes to this: 
 That Violent ¥ 'arty -men may fill not be 
 great Knaves - y efpecially if they be Terfe- 
 cuted. [Not Confidering that Arias will 
 on both Accounts have an Equal Title to 
 Integrity with Athanafius.~] That is to 
 fay, I have taken a great deal of Pains to 
 prove an Undeniable General Truth, 
 which after all is fo far from being to my 
 Purpofe, that it makes as much againftme 
 as for me : Whereas you may fee, if you 
 think fit to open your Eyes, that my Ar- 
 guments upon that head are chiefly Parti- 
 cular; Concluding it highly Improbable, 
 that Athanafius would have been a Knave, 
 to fupport His Tarty > becaufe if He had 
 been a Knave, it is highly Probable He 
 would have been of the Contrary Party i 
 and that it is neither Charitable norRea- 
 fonable to believe, that a Man would fa- 
 crifice His Confcience to the Defenfe of 
 a Caufe, which Confcience only could 
 
 E 4 make 
 
j% A Vefenfe of the dnfwer to 
 
 make Him Efpoufe, contrary to His Ap- 
 parent Intereft. And as for the Sagaci- 
 ous Remark, which you have put into a 
 Parenthefis, Not Conjidering &c. I am ve- 
 ry willing to Confefs that I Confidered it 
 not, any more than you Lonfidered> 
 when you wrote it, what Obligation 1 was 
 then under to prove Arius a Villain. I 
 allure you I do not in the leaft repent of 
 the Favour, you think, I have Inconfider- 
 ately done him. 
 
 II. MY Anjwer to your Second Sujpi- 
 cion is, you fay. That the Athanafiansy 
 <who altered the Language and Traffiices 
 of ChriftianS) becaufe they do not tell us 
 they intended to alter the Faith it felf y 
 are not to be efteemed ^Dangerous to the 
 Church. In that Sufpicion all Good Peo- 
 ple are advifed to be upon their Guard a- 
 gainft Athanajius, left He Jloould prove an 
 Introducer of the Antichnftian State -, and 
 that becaufe He was a Bold Terfon, for 
 which you cite Na&ianzen, arid an Inno- 
 vator in Religion , for which you quote 
 Montfaucon. In anfwer to It, I proved 
 both thefe Propositions to be Falfe, and 
 the Quotations, upon which they are 
 Grounded, Impertinent. I Obferved,That 
 the two Paflages brought from Nazian- 
 zen> and Artfully joyned together, were 
 only Examples of that Falfe Sublime, 
 which is the Character of almoft all the 
 
 Writers 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. 73 
 
 Writers of thofe times who pretended to 
 Eloquence 3 That the Honour there faid 
 to be paid Athanafius was not, as you 
 feem ^Defirous to Infinuate, theSubmiffion 
 of a Tarty to their Head, but the Love 
 and Veneration of a few ^/Egyptian Monks 
 for their Perfecuted Archbifliop j That 
 there was nothing Unlawful either in the 
 Degree of their Refpeft, or their way of 
 (hewing it j That if it really was Greater 
 than what was Lawful, it does not ap- 
 pear that Athanafius claimed any part of 
 it, and it was no more in His Power to 
 reftrain the Exceflive Refpeft of His 
 Friends, than the Spiteful Suspicions of His 
 Enemies. And as to the Other Part of 
 His Charge, Introducing new words, if 
 the Words made ufe of by the Council of 
 Nice be meant? I proved at large that A- 
 thanafius could not be called the Intro- 
 ducer of them, being then but a Deacon, 
 and very Young > and that if He did In- 
 troduce them, He did well in fo doing. 
 
 AFTER your Faithful Summary of my 
 Anfwer, you proceed to Animadvert upon 
 two or three Words in it, which, I find, 
 found very harfli in your Ears. But that 
 a Creed is not at all the worje for being 
 a Contefted one, as Air. Thirlby affirms, I 
 hope he will find few Good Chrijlians in 
 this Age ; excepting fome through-pac'd 
 Athanafians, that will believe him. You 
 
 had 
 
74 -^ Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 had declared, that youabhor'd the thoughts 
 of Impofing any other than an Uncontejl- 
 ed Creed upon the Church. This Notion 
 1 could not by any means aflent to; Im- 
 pojing a Teft, which no body could refufe 
 ro take, feeming to me at that time to be 
 a little Abfurd. And I am not yet at all dif- 
 pofed to alter my Opinion -, neither fhall 
 I be, till I fee fome better Reafon againft 
 it, than your repeated Declaration of Ab- 
 horrence. Provided there be nothing in- 
 ferted but Eflential and Fundamental Ar- 
 ticles of Faith, which Caution 1 took care 
 to put in before, I muft own I am not yet 
 able to fee what there is in a Creeds being 
 Contefled) to make it fo Horrible and Q- 
 dious. Is it not very Probable, that feve- 
 ral Articles were inferted by the Church 
 into the Apoftles Creed, purely becaufe 
 they were denied by Hereticks*? Is that 
 Creed at all the worfe becaufe every Ar- 
 ticle of it has been Oppofed by fome He- 
 reticks or other? Is the Article which 
 pronounces God the Father, Maker of 
 Heaven and Earth, the iiorfe for being 
 Con trad ifted by Simon Magus, Menander, 
 the Gnoficks, 'Carpocratians, Cerinthians-> 
 Falentiniansifkc, upon which account it is 
 not altogether Improbable that it wasfirfl: 
 
 * Propter nonnullos Haereticos addita quaedam vidcntur, 
 per quae Novellae Doclrinae fenfus crederetur excludi. Rufin. 
 Comment, in Symb. Apofl, p. 170. Ed.Parif. 
 
 put; 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. 75 
 
 put in? Is the Word Catholick to be ab- 
 hor d as Antichriflian-) becaufe very proba- 
 bly inferted in Oppofition to the Novati- 
 ans, *Donatifts> or other Scbifmaticks ? 
 Was not theCommunion of Saints added too % 
 and that, in all Probability, as low as the 
 Fourth Century, and for the fame Reafon ? 
 IN fhort, if it be an Abominable 
 thing, to impofe any other than an Un- 
 contefted Creed-, it is very Ridiculous, in 
 my Opinion, to Impofe any Creed at all. 
 Creeds were Impofed to diftinguifli be- 
 twixt Hereticks and the Orthodox, Falle 
 and True Chriftians*f> that the Former 
 might not indifcernibly intermix themfel ves 
 with the Latter, and fo Pollute their 
 Holy Rites, and Subvert the Weak: 
 And how can this be effe&ed by 
 an Uncontefted Creed, which Hereticks 
 will as readily aflent to as the Orthodox ? 
 The Creed therefore being a fort of a Tef* 
 fera Militarise or Symbol * 3 to diftinguiih 
 Friends from Foes in this Militant State 
 of the Church; when the Old Creed, by 
 the Artifice of the Arians, no longer an- 
 fwered that Defign, the Council of Nice 
 
 f Idcirco iftud Indicium pofuerunt, per quod agnofceretur is 
 qui Chriftum vere fecundum Aportolicas regulas praedicaref. 
 Ruf.in Symb, p. 170. 
 
 * Symbola diftindta unufquifque Dux fuis Militibus tradit 
 
 ut (i forte occurrerit quis de quo dubitetur, interrogates Sym- 
 bolum, prodat fi fit hoitis vel Socius. Id, Ib'id. 
 
 wifely 
 
jS A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 wifely made a new One ; as a Wary Gene- 
 ral, if the Enemy chance to get the Word* 
 immediately gives out another, that they 
 may not, by the Advantage of it, enter 
 his Camp at Pleafure, to the Ruin and 
 Deftru&ion of his Army. 
 
 III. THE Summary you give of my An- 
 fwer to your Third Suspicion is this, Mr. 
 Thirlby pleads ', that my Character of A- 
 thanajius is falfe, becaufe it is not agree- 
 able to His own Accounts of Himfelf* 
 and to the Opinion His own 'Party have 
 long had of Him. If I had really done fo, 
 there would have been more Force in 
 that Tlea, than there is Wit or Truth in 
 this Reprefentation; nay, I will maintain, 
 it had been a fufficient Anfwer. The Snf- 
 picion runs thus, A Verfon of His Gene- 
 ral Charaffer, which I take to be that of 
 one Refolute^ &c. cannot but afford Great 
 Room for Sufpicion to Confidering Men. 
 Here, if by General Character you mean 
 the Character He has Generally had in 
 the World, I have proved, according to 
 your own Account, that He has General- 
 ly had a very Different Character-, and 
 confequently, that your Sufpicion^ built 
 upon His General Character, is Ground- 
 lefs. If by His General Character you 
 mean His Compleat Character drawn at 
 large, as you there feem to explain your 
 felf, you might as well have faid, "A Per- 
 
 "f0Q 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Suspicions* 77 
 
 ^fon, whom I take to have been one of 
 rt a Bad Chara&er, and of whom I have 
 <c conceived a Bad Opinion (though I do 
 * c not think fit at prefent to tell you why) 
 ct cannot but afford Great Room for Sufpi- 
 tl don to Confidering Men. This is your Mo- 
 deft Conclufion in its full Strength -, and if I 
 had faid much lefs in anfwer to it, than 
 you make me to have faid, I (hould yet 
 have faid much more than it De- 
 ferved. 
 
 IV. MY Anfwer to your Fourth Sufpi* 
 cion> is, you fay, That Epiphanius y s Ac- 
 count of the Origin of the Melitians muft 
 be Falfe, becaufe it is probable it came 
 from t hemf elves i and the Contrary muji 
 be True, becaufe it comes from Athanafius 
 THAT Sufpicion is grounded upon 
 the 'Different Accounts given by Atha- 
 nafius and Epiphanius of the Origin of 
 the Melitians <> from which, and from the 
 Decifion of the Council of Nice, which 
 was more favourable to thefe Melitians 
 than to the Arians, You conclude, that 
 Athanajius's Account is Unfaithful, and 
 the EffeEl of Hatred. To this I anfwer- 
 ed, That there is no Reafon to queftion 
 the Sincerity either of Athanafius or Epi- 
 phanius from this Difference -, and That 
 the Enquiry ought only to be, on which 
 fide there appears the Greateft Probabili- 
 ty of Miftake, And in order to Deter- 
 mine 
 
7 tf A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 nvine that, I obferved, That Epiphanius 
 differs from all other Ecclefiaftical Writers 
 in this matter, as well as from Athanafius - y 
 That Athanafius lived at the fame time, and 
 in the fame Country where that Schifma- 
 rofe* That Epiphanius, on the Contrary? 
 lived many Years after, and at a place far 
 Diftant* fo that he could know nothing of 
 this Eufinefs but by Information from o-. 
 thers, which he was very apt to truft to 
 without much Examination; being, as 
 Learned Men agree, too Credulous in ma- 
 ny Inftances, and Probably in this Cafe 
 impofed upon by a Falfe Account from 
 the Melitians. 
 
 FROM thefe laft Words, which I hope 
 you now fee are but a very fmall part of 
 my Anfwer, you take Occafion to be fo 
 Exceffively Witty, at the Expenfe of 
 Truth, as to make the Sum of what I have 
 faid upon this Point to be, That Epipha- 
 nius s Account muft be Falfe x becaufe it 
 'Probably came from the Melitians. How- 
 ever as little Strefs as I then laid upon this 
 Probability, fince you have made choice 
 of it to be the Subject of your Ridicule, 
 it may not be improper to enlarge a little up- 
 on it. That Epiphanius's Account came 
 OriginalIy/r0/# the Melitians, as Imparti- 
 al as you make him to be in this Matter, 
 is very Evident from the Air of Partiali- 
 ty , which runs through the whole Narra- 
 tion* 
 
Mr. Whiftons Sufpkionu 79 
 
 tion, and particularly from his not faying 
 one word of the Sentence which the Coun- 
 cil of Nice pafled upon Melitius and his Fol- 
 lowers: And that this Account was Tro- 
 bably Falfe> is Clear enough, I think> 
 from the Pra&ice of all Schifmaticks in all 
 Ages, from the Condemnation of thefe 
 Melitians by the Council of Nice, and 
 from the Neceffity they lay under upon 
 that account of framing fome very Plau- 
 fible Story of their own Origin. 
 
 THIS "Probability was all I then contend- 
 ed for : but fince you was pleafed to be fo 
 very Facetious upon it, you (hall fee that 
 I had good Reafon to call That Trobably 
 Falfe, which I can eafily prove to be Cer- 
 tainly fo. In order to that I might Ob- 
 ferve, that This Account is in many Cir- 
 cumftances perfeftly Incredible, and very 
 Confufed throughout, particularly in the 
 Notation of Time -, making Alexa?ider 
 Teter's Succeflbr in the See of Alexandria, 
 and Achillas Alexander's. Befides, Epi- 
 phanius's Story neceflarily fuppofes, and 
 he himfelf exprefsly affirms, thztTeterhy 
 a long time in Prifon before His Martyr- 
 dom j whereas Eufebius, who was in c/£- 
 gypt in that Perfecution *, afluresus, that 
 He was Beheaded immediately after He 
 was apprehended f. Neither is it at 
 
 * H,E, ], mi, c. 9, f I !X. e. 6, 
 
 all 
 
8o A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 all Probable, that fo Excellent a Bifhop, 
 as Eufebius tells us 'Peter was, fhould quar- 
 rel with Melitius for declaring his Opinion 
 againft admitting the Lapfi to Communion 
 immediately upon their Repentance, and 
 in the very time of Perfecution invite others 
 to follow their Example byprofeffing Him- 
 felf ready to receive them upon their firft Ap- 
 plication for Pardon* contrary to the (land- 
 ing Difcipline of the Church j This, I fay, is 
 not very Probable, efpecially if it beCon- 
 fidered "that he had not long before pub- 
 lished fome very fevere Canons* to fix the 
 Different Lengths of the Pennance thefe 
 Lapfi were to undergo, according as Dif- 
 ferent Circumftances aggravated or exte- 
 nuated their Fault *• 
 
 TO your other Argument, drawn from 
 the Determination of the Council of Nice, 
 I anfwered, That there was no Reafon why 
 Schifmaticks Sound in the Faith fhould be 
 puniflied as feverely as the Word of He- 
 reticks, and that if their Sentence was 
 more gentle than they defer ved according to 
 Athanafius* it was alfo infinitely more fevere 
 than they deferved according to Epipha- 
 nius , whereas the Council it felf exprefsly 
 fays, in Confirmation of Athanafiuss Ac- 
 count* and in Direft Oppofition to the O- 
 ther, that Melitius and the Melitians had 
 
 Ap. Bevcrcg. Pand. Tom- ?, 
 
 been 
 
Mn Whi&oris Sufpicions. 8 1 
 
 been more gently dealt with than they defer- 
 vedf. The Sum of this is, you fay, That 
 Athanafuss Account muft be True becaufe 
 it comes from Athanajius ! 
 
 V. IN your 'Fifth Sufpicion you affirm 
 that Athanajius $ Tout h fid Tr e at ifes contain 
 in a manner the fame T)o£irine that He 
 afterwards oppofed. This I flatly denied, 
 and undertook to maintain lhatthofeTrea- 
 tifes contain nothing contrary to the Ca- 
 tholick Faiths and fome things direEily 
 contrary to the Arian HereJ); and chal- 
 lenged you to joyn Iffue with me upon 
 that Queftion, and faid all I could to pro- 
 voke you to accept that Challenge. And 
 what is the Event ? Why, it feems, you have 
 the Good Grace to make me the Compli- 
 ment of Underftanding thefe Matters fo 
 well as to agree with you in your 
 Judgment, that thefe Treatifes have not 
 much that is like the Athanafian Noti- 
 ons and Language afterwards -, you would 
 alfo perfuade me, that I never offered any 
 fuch Challenge, nor ever denied the Truth 
 of what you affirm. For, according to you, 
 all I have pretended to fay, in Oppofition 
 to that Sufpicion of yours, amounts to no 
 more than this, That though Athanajius s 
 firjl Treatifes have not much that is like 
 the Athanafian Notions and Language after- 
 ward-, yet we are to fuppofe that they 
 
 f Synod. Epifi, ap. Socr. 1. 1. c, 9. 
 
 F mean 
 
8z A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 mean the fame things \ becaufe they were 
 written by Athanafius-, who cannot befup- 
 pofed ever to have Contradicted Himfelf 
 in thefe Matters. 
 
 IN this pretended Summary you make 
 me to fay, 
 
 i. THAT Athanafiuss Fir ft Treat ifes 
 have not much that is like the Athana- 
 fian Notions and Language afterward. 
 
 2. THAT though they have not much 
 that is like the Athanafian Notions and 
 Language afterward; yet we are to fup- 
 pofe that they mean the fame things, 
 
 3. THAT we are therefore to fuppofe 
 that they mean the fame things, becaufe 
 they were written by Athanafius. 
 
 4. THAT the Reafon why we are there- 
 fore to fuppofe that they mean the fame 
 things-, becaufe they were written by A- 
 thanafiusi is, that He cannot be fuppofed 
 ever to have contradicted Himfelf in 
 thefe Matters. 
 
 I DARE fay no other Man but my Sa- 
 gacious Correfpondent Mr. Whiston 
 cculd have discovered any of thefe four 
 Propofitions, or any thing like any one 
 of them, in my Anfwer to that Sufpicion : 
 But I (hall not trouble my felf to Expostu- 
 late with you upon the Palpable Injuftice 
 of this Reprefentation j it may be perhaps 
 a little more Ufefull, to me I am fure it is 
 a much more Pleafant Task, to endeavour 
 
 to 
 
Mr. Whifton j Sufpiciom. S3 
 
 to Convince you, that I have fomc better Ar- 
 guments for my Opinion that thofeTreatifes 
 zxQnotAriarhxX^wbecaufethey^erc . 
 by Athanafms. Jn order to that I (hall not 
 much infill upon His Calling our Saviour 
 God, as He does no lefs than forty times 
 in thofe Treatifes^ neither fhall 1 at pre- 
 fent make any Obfervations upon thePaf- 
 fages I fhall produce, though many of 
 them very well deferve it* but fet them 
 before you without any Comment, thac 
 you may try your Skill upon them, and 
 fee how you can reconcile them with the 
 Notions and Language of Arianifm. ZZv- 
 tcc x.ou cwipyX Biov 3 cLvwAoyv \eyo) y K o$ <xMo$ judp 
 '(& TV y$VY\TUV % Ttn<m$ £ Knaias. p. 39. O 
 
 ®v 6gi ilj ov (rjvviTU$> otM. 11$ 59 /xovoytow jec$, 
 % W twlt$q$ oiol <7myX$ kyx$y\s kyySiot ^u^:A3^/ 
 to, 7iavt#, sJ&YjoapLti x.au\ auwxju. p. 4°* 'AVito 
 Aoyu. lb. *0 7niVTD}uvx{.w$ 59 7nx]iTc \m$ kyio$ 
 y 7co§g$ \oy>$> x. T. A. p. 4 1 * ^° yx-P -m^y.- 
 <Tb£o!> olvtoS Tvis ^ZQ-nvrcs t^td 'fyv y on en -/j tJclxj- 
 TU> 9&jfjL0Ltl 7raLV'(gL 0^5? 3COM Cot hi ^o£q7j//-tfW, 
 kto> 9 ct!}pQQ$> — 'G$&taiyeix i C^KOgjjlS. lb. '.Qts 
 l£ cwxyu]$ Svoc\ t \lyyj <yv tq> yavwcvn, ^ T 
 yenypin& guv to* imrctK SLJ-fricmQuv* p. 4^ ^ 
 Scothtb^ aijT8 jMLpiv&cu/. p. 47. AlC„ TWS <£t- 
 as 'Z^vofas xoy %]&yjO(rfji.Yma$ *ryf c\cev. p. 59, 
 'A(pav>j5 aw 3tocj olo^lto$ 2/^gJ- TyJ ep^y knQcun* 
 p. 6t. 'Ev TO) a.vQpGd'mvce) (rco/Mim av 9 zxi glvT-.$ 
 
 F 2 T0T5 
 
84 A Defenfe of the Atipwer to 
 
 toi$ 7t&<m lyiviTO) 59 e£fi> r rfJ o\m w. lb. TIolv 
 
 T%Vy rluu V XoyS SblQTi{&\ /ZXiTTUVi ChtiTl/^p 
 
 cc7rctTDtToc| ise* .Teod, ftovov 3 Tyroy ^oo-jtio/ei) x^ 
 Stf ccutS x^aS? t 7wltc^ch ytmoxu. p. 87. 'Etti 
 
 Tes, $1 airy jc, '0/ Qf?c nhiaztv -mtTi^L yivaxnaioi. 
 p. 88. 'EymtuQyi ^tos k\*idivo$ y 5eS 3"ws Ao^ps. 
 lb. njcoa-fcuyjjjoi £e>cswj S'eoi' clvtov 0fioAoyoZy%$. 
 p. 93. 
 
 VI. THOUGH the Arians did a long 
 time publickly Accufe Athanafius of the 
 Murder of Arfenius •, and that perhaps af- 
 ter the time when He fays He had open- 
 ly produced Him alive y yet are Athana- 
 fius and His Followers to be believedrfhat 
 he was certainly then alive. 
 
 THOUGH the Arians did publickly ac- 
 cufe Him of this Murder yet may we very 
 fafely believe that Arfenius was then alive^ 
 upon the Authority of the Ecclefiaftical 
 Hifrorians 5 and many Writers of that Age, 
 fupported by the Confeffions of thofe who 
 contrived thatVillainousAccufation^neither 
 does it require any Great Degree of Cre- 
 dulity to believe^ that a Man may be In- 
 nocent although He be Accufed. As for 
 the other Claufe {and that perhaps after 
 the time when He fays He had openly pro- 
 duced him alive) I made you no fuch Con- 
 cefllon. You affirmed at random, that the 
 Arians did Still All His Life accufe Him 
 publickly upon All Qccafions of the fame 
 
 Mm- 
 
Mr- WliiftonV Sufpicions. 85 
 
 Murder. This I thought a little too much to 
 believe upon your Bare Word (or ir, and 
 therefore I made a very Reafonable Re- 
 queft to you, which was that you would 
 be fo kind as to mention one of thofe 
 jPublzck Occaflons for my Satisfaction; and 
 that you might fee 1 had fome Grounds 
 for refuting my Aflent to that General 
 Aflertion of yours, I fliewed that they did 
 it not upon the two firft and rnoft proper 
 Occafions Imaginable for thatpurpofe. And 
 indeed it is Notorious,that they hadfeveral 
 Publick Occafions offered thcrn afterwards 
 to make out the truth of this Accufation, 
 which yet they did not think fit to make 
 ufe of. For did they do it at the Synod 
 of Rome<> affembledat their own requeft^ 
 for a rehearing ofAthanafius's Caufe? Did 
 they do it ztSardica, though often called 
 upon by the Council f, and importuned by 
 Hojius^ to produce what they had againft 
 Him, either Publickly before the Synod, 
 or in private before himfelf only, with the 
 promife of a fair Hearing, and ajuft Cen- 
 fure if they made good their Accufations? 
 No : thefe were Occafions too Tublick for 
 their Purpofe. 
 
 TO accufe Tublick/y, I fliould think, 
 
 * Socr. E. H. 1. 11. c 11. Soz. 1. 111. c. 7. Julii Epift* 
 ap. Athanaf. Apolog. contra Arian. p. 142, 143, 146. 
 
 f V .Epift. Syn. Sard. ap. Athan. Apol. p. 156. 163. &c. 
 I V.Hofii Epift. ap. Athan. Hift. Arian. adMonach. p. 3^0. 
 
 F 1 fhould 
 
8£ A Vefenfe of the Anfiver to 
 
 fhould mean to charge a Man Openly, in a 
 Lawful Aflemblyj where, upon hearing the 
 Evidence and Alienations on both fides, he 
 might cither be Acquitted or Condemned: 
 bur this fair Method of Trace dure they 
 could not be perfuaded to fubmit to. 
 \\ indeed to Accufe Tublickly, and to Con- 
 yifit, means no more than, in your way, 
 ilumniari) to bait a Man with 
 i jnd.ilons Libels, and Groundlefs Sufpi- 
 ciotis'i then 1 confefs, it maybe true, that 
 they did accufe HimTublickly enough #/w» 
 many Occafions: and fuch an Accusati- 
 on it was 5 which the Arian Bifhops 
 feem defirous to Infir.uate, as Warily as 
 they could *, after rhcy had refufed the 
 Tub lick Hearing ottered them at the Coun- 
 cil of Sardica. 
 
 THE reft of my Anfwer, you fay, 
 comes to this : That though That Emper- 
 or> whofe pretended Letter expreffes his 
 Surprize at That Impudence of His Ad- 
 versaries* foon banifloed Him notwithftand- 
 ing , yet are Athanafns and His Follow- 
 ers to be believed* That That Letter of 
 the Emperor is Genuine. After I have 
 Obfcrved to you, that you do not Pre- 
 1 to give any Account of my Anfwers 
 to Two of your Four. Objedhons upon 
 this Head} 1 mud put you m mind, that 
 
 * V. Hilar. Fragm. col. 437. 
 
 this 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpkions. 87 
 
 this is fo far from being the Sum of my 
 Anfwer, that it is the Sum of one of your 
 own Arguments, and that almoft in the 
 very fame Words, without taking the lead 
 Notice of any thing laid againft it. 
 
 VII. THfc, Sum of my Anfwer to your 
 Seventh Sufpicion is, you fay, that Atha- 
 nafius's Account of Anthony s Miracles is 
 not to be Sufpeifed, fince it does not di- 
 rectly tell you , they were to ferve the 
 Turn of a Tarty. TheConfequenceyou 
 would Ridicule here, is not, as you very 
 Ingenioufly infinuate, that Athanafius 
 does not challenge Aflent to HisDo&rine 
 upon the Authority of thefeMiracles, there- 
 fore His Accoimt of them is True: but 
 This, Antony 's Miracles were not contrived 
 andalledged, either by himfelf or Athanafius, 
 for Teflimonials to the Athanafian Caufe and 
 'Dottrine-, therefore one of Mr. Whifioris Ar- 
 guments, drawn from theSuppofal of their 
 being fo contrived and alledged, is Falfe and 
 Groundlefs. This Argument you fhould 
 either have defended, or fairly given up, 
 inftead of Confounding General and Par- 
 ticular Conclufions-, upon which fingle 
 Artifice or Miftake, all that Vaft Deal of 
 Wit and Humour, which enlivens thefe 
 Judicious Reflections^ entirely depends. 
 But to proceed in your Summary. 
 
 AN\D fince many Admirers of At ha- 
 nafius and of Monkery tell us fever al St o- 
 
 F 4 ries 
 
8 8 A Defenfe of the Anfiuer to 
 
 riesy as well attefted, of the like Miracles 
 done by others afterwards. This 1 per- 
 ceive is meant for the Sum of what I have 
 faid to take off your Objection of lucre- 
 dibility againft Antony's Miracles * ; though 
 of three Obfervations made upon that 
 Head, this, which you would here Bur- 
 lefque, is far the Weakeft •, each of the 
 other two being of it felf a fufficient An- 
 fwer, and this only a Collateral Argu- 
 ment. However though it be the Weak- 
 eft of the Three, it will ftand the Force 
 of Stronger Objections than any you have 
 brought againft it. Your firft Exception 
 is, that the Writers, from whom we have 
 thefe Accounts of the like Miracles done by 
 other s^ were Admirers of Athanafms. In 
 this there is not the leaft Appearance of 
 'an Argument, unlefs we fuppofe that 
 the Author, who dares prefume to 
 mention Athanafius with Honour, ought 
 never to be believed in \ any Cafe 
 whatfoever 3 Or that the Ecclefiaftical 
 Hiftorians and other Writers, who tell us 
 of thefe Miracles-* had Athanafius's Life 
 of Antony in view, and being His Admi- 
 rers, and confequently very Sollicitous 
 about His Reputation, wifely forefaw, that 
 a Vehement Suspicion might fome time or 
 other be raifed againft His Integrity from 
 
 the 
 
Mr. Whifton V Sufpicions. 8j> 
 
 the Incredible Nature of the Miracles re- 
 corded in that Life> and therefore forged 
 many other Miracles equally Improbable, 
 purely to keep Athanafius in Counte- 
 nance. Your Second Exception, that thefe 
 Writers were Admirers of Monkery > is an 
 Invidious Reflexion, but no Argument. 
 And that thefe Miracles were not contri- 
 ved for the Credit of Monkery ', anymore 
 than for the Defenfe of Athanafius, is 
 plain from the Miracles afcribed to many 
 who were no Monks, and particularly to 
 Spyridion. YourLaftException is, that thefe 
 Miracles are laid to have been done after- 
 wards \ which is utterly falfe; two of the 
 Three Perfons mentioned,and many of thofe 
 refer'd to, being Antony's Contemporaries. 
 And if all of them had been done after- 
 wards^ this would be fo far from making 
 them Unferviceable, that it would make 
 them more Serviceable, to Athanafius in 
 this point •, by furnifhing an Anfwer to 
 another Objedfton of yours, that Miracles 
 were then very far ceafed. 
 
 ESPECIALLY fince the Apparent In- 
 confiflencies therein may by fome Artful 
 Tarns be Tolerably Reconciled. To this I 
 ihall only anfwer, that if they be Tolera- 
 bly Reconciled^ they are no longer Appa- 
 rent Inconfiflenciesy unlefs by Apparent you 
 mean the Appearance only-, and if thefe 
 Artful Turns bz Forced and Strained, and 
 
 not 
 
5>o A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 not Plaid and Eafy, you fliould have laid 
 open the Artifice, and fhewn wherein the 
 Reconciliation is Deficient. 
 
 VIII THE Sum of my Anfwer to your 
 next Sufpicim is, that Athanajius, who 
 was Orthodox is more to be believed* than 
 EufebiuS) who was a fort of Arian. You 
 affirmed there, that Eufebius's Integrity 
 was too well known to have that of Atha- 
 najius come in the leafi Competition with it. 
 In anfwer to this 1 Obferved, That the 
 moft Learned of the Prefent and Pad Ages 
 were almoft equally divided in their Opi- 
 nions, whether Eufebius was Orthodoxy or 
 an Arian-, That thofe, who think him Or- 
 thodox, could not be fo well aflured of a 
 Man s Integrity* who, at the fame time as 
 he was Orthodox in his Heart, a&ed in 
 Conjunction with the Arians in their Per- 
 fections and Violent Pra&ices againft^ 
 Orthodox; That the Others were as little 
 Able to account for his Letter to hisDio- 
 cefe, and his fubfcribingf^? Nicene Creed} 
 And I might have added, that you your 
 felf, as well aflured of his Integrity as you 
 think fit to be there in theTreface to your 
 TrimitiveChriftianity* begin to doubt, be- 
 fore you come to the End of the fourth 
 Volume, that one of his Reafons forSub- 
 fcribing was Fear of Deprivation*. This 
 I faid, not with any Defign to raife aSuf- 
 
 * Append, p. 1 6. 
 
 fficion 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Suspicions. *> i 
 
 pic ion concerning Eufebius> but only to mew, 
 that his Integrity was not to well known? 
 as to be Dangerous to that of Athanafius in 
 the Companion. To this 1 added as fol- 
 lows, According to Mr. Whiflon, Eufebins 
 was an Arian -, and if he was> mnf one 
 Tarty-man be thought a Knave , becaufe 
 another Contradicts him? Is not the one 
 as Likely to think too well of his Friends, 
 as the other too ill of his Enemies? Sec. 
 By this time, Sir, I hope even you your 
 felf are Convinced, that there is a Double 
 Falfehood in this Reprefentation.; fir it in 
 making me give Athanafius the Preference 
 becauie He was Orthodox, and Secondly 
 in making me fay Eufebias was a fort of A- 
 rian-, when it was fo very plain, that what I 
 faid upon fuppofal he was an Arian, was on- 
 ly an Argument adHominem>my when 1 had 
 exprefsly declared that it was no more, in 
 the Following Words: This I bring only 
 as an Argument ad Hominem ; Whether Eu- 
 febius was an Arian or not, is what I do 
 not pretend to determine. But to proceed, 
 ANT) if Marcellns was an Heretick* 
 we are to own that Athanafius at laft dif- 
 cardedhimasfuch. We are ib, and that be- 
 caufe, as 1 then Obferved, it is Impoflible 
 to prove him an Heretick, without prov- 
 ing the other at the fame time* two of 
 the Principal Witnefles again ft: Marcellns 
 direttly affirming it. And it is plain from 
 
 almoft 
 
9 % A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 almoft every Page of Athanafius'^ Works, 
 that He was no more inclinable to the He- 
 refy of which Marcellus was accufed, than 
 to Arianifm- 
 
 IX. YOUR Epitome of my Anfwer to 
 your Ninth Sufpicion is this, We muft be- 
 lieve Arius died by a 'Divine Stroke, not- 
 withstanding the Uncertainty of the Ac- 
 counts y the Chronological Inconfiftences , 
 the Arians Denial of it $ the no mention of 
 it in twenty Tears, the U nac quaint ednefs of 
 the Bijhops ofc_y£gypt with it, and while the 
 firjl Accounts of it were not to be Tranfcribed. 
 
 HERE, Sir, I mufl: Obferve in the 
 firft place, that you have Covertly al- 
 tered the State of the Queftion : The 
 Difpute betwixt us before was not whe- 
 ther Arius died by a Divine Stroke, 
 but whether Athanafius'^ Account of his 
 Miferable Death might be depended up- 
 on -y The Controverted Point was the 
 Truth of the Fa£t, and not of the Con- 
 fequence Athanafius draws from the Re- 
 markable Circumftances of it. Whether 
 thofe Circumftances, when put together, 
 are a fufficient Ground for Interefting Pro- 
 vidence in that Affair, is a Queftion in 
 which the Credit of Athanafius s Judge- 
 ment may perhaps be concerned, but it is 
 the other only which can poilibly affect 
 His Integrity. 
 
 THE 
 
Mr. Whifton's Sufpcions. 95 
 
 THE Uncertainty of the Accounts I have 
 denied, and fully difproved : Neither can 
 it well be fuppoiedPoffible, that any Piece 
 of Hiftory fhould be more Certain at this 
 Diftance of Time, or come down to us 
 better attefted -, being not only aflerted by 
 the Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians, Rufinusy So- 
 crates y Sozomeny and The odor it (of whom 
 Socrates, ashehimfelftells us*, was a Na- 
 tive of Conjiantinopky where the Scene of 
 this Fad is laid) but alfo frequently ap- 
 pealed to by many other Writers in their 
 Difputations againft the Ariansy and par- 
 ticularly by Nazianzeny who was Arch- 
 bifliop of Con/fantinopky in feveral Orati- 
 ons, one of which at leaft was fpoken in that 
 City. " I am not the Firft, fays he, who has 
 "preached to you the Orthodox Do&rine* 
 "I have followed the Steps of Others, and 
 " indeed your own, if you be the Difciples 
 " of your Glorious Bifhop Alexander ', that 
 "Great Defender of the Do&rine of the 
 tc Trinity, who confuted the Arian Herefy 
 "by his A&ionsaswell as by his Argu- 
 " ments ; For you remember that Apofto- 
 "lical Prayer of his, by virtue of which 
 "the Author of that Herefy periihed in a 
 "place as filthy as his own foul tongue f. 
 
 THE Chronological Inconfiftenctes you 
 Objefted are twoi one of which I clearly 
 
 J L.T. C. 24. + OMt, XXYll. P. d.tf+, 
 
 dif- 
 
5)4 A Defenfe of the Anfiver to 
 
 difproved, and the other I fliewed to be of 
 no Confequence,but rather a Proof thati?#- 
 finus did not tranfcribe Athanafuis^ and 
 thereby a farther Confirmation of the 
 Truth of the Fa£h than an Argument a- 
 gainft it ; Rufinus being an Author fo very 
 Faulty in the Notation of time, that if 
 every Faft, which he has placed under a 
 falfe Date, was therefore to be fufpe&ed, 
 Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, fo far as he has pro- 
 ceeded in it, would be very Uncertain in ma- 
 ny Particulars of Unqueftionable Truth. 
 
 ' THE Arians 'Denial of it is a New Ar- 
 gument, and, I think, of no great force. 
 But allowing it to be a good one, 1 believe 
 you will find it a Difficult Matter to prove, 
 that the Arians ever denied the Fact, what- 
 ever they might think of the Conclufion, 
 which the Orthodox made from it. It 
 was not denied* I am fure, by thofe of his 
 Se£t, who accounted for the ftrange Cir- 
 cumftances of ir, by charging it upon the 
 Magical Arts of the Orthodox "f> and that 
 Arian 5 who afterwards built an houfe 
 upon the Place, in order to obliterate the 
 reproach, took a very odd way of ac- 
 quainting the World with his denial of 
 the Fa£t. 
 
 THE no mention of it. in 20 Tears by any 
 body, nor in 40 by any but Athanafins 
 
 f Soa. 1. 11. c. 29. f Id. 1. 1 i.e. 30. 
 
 (though 
 
Mr. Whifton's Sufpicions. 9$ 
 
 (though within lefs than 50 Tears it is 
 mentioned and appealed to, as a thing 
 known and ConfefTed, by feveral Writers) 
 may be allowed perhaps to have the Ap- 
 pearance of an Argument, when you can 
 name any Author within that time, who 
 has made no mention of it* when he had 
 any Occafion to do it. 
 
 THE Unac quaint ednefs of the Bifbops 
 of ds^gypt with it, is what I have been 
 fo far from granting, as you feem to in- 
 iinuate, that! have fully anfwered the Ar- 
 guments you bring to prove it, as alfo 
 what you have faid about the Caution of 
 taking no Copy. And 1 humbly Conceive, 
 that there is a great deal of Difference be- 
 twixt a Repetition and a Reply. 
 
 X. XL XII. XIII. XIV. THE Sum of 
 my Anfwers to your Five Next Sufpicions, 
 you fay, is This : We muft believe Atha- 
 nafms's Authority to be fo Sacred and In- 
 violable, that let the Sufpicions look never 
 fo Strongs let the Affertions He quotes be 
 never fo Extravagant - y let them be never 
 Jo Contrary to the known Opinions of the 
 fame Authors, and to other Ancient Tefti- 
 monies concerning them; Let Tetavius, 
 nay let Origen 9 Baft I, Jercm, Thotius, 
 and Others, fay what they pleafe to the 
 Contrary ; He is ft ill to be believed before 
 and againft them all: And there can be 
 no fujficient Reafon given, to doubt of His 
 
 Ho~ 
 
5>6 A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 Honefty and Fairnefs y in any Cafe what- 
 foever. 
 
 THIS 1 have anfwered, as much as it 
 needs, and much more than it deferves, 
 by Tranfcribing it. The mod Negligent 
 Reader, upon the moft Tranfient View of 
 thofe Anfwers<i will foon fee whether this 
 Reprefentation be Juft or not: If it be, I 
 muft own my felf to be an Egregious Tri- 
 fler; If it be not, you may perhaps be 
 in danger of being thought at the fame 
 time a very Trifling Writer, and not alto- 
 gether fo great a Lover of Truth as you 
 pretend to be. 
 
 XV. YOUR Summary of my Anfwer 
 to your Fifteenth Sufpicion is, That the 
 Council of Antioch did agree with the 
 Council of Nice, becaufe I am abletofup- 
 pofe how they may be Reconciled in their 
 "Direct Contradictions , though I cannot 
 pretend to have the Leafl Original Evi- 
 dence for fitch a Reconciliation. Here, 
 though fcarce any thing in the World could 
 be more for your Advantage, both as to 
 your Grand Quarrel with Orthodoxy, and 
 your Private Pique agzinft Athanajius, than 
 to prove that the tv/o Councils were of 
 Different Opinions y yetinftead ofanfwer- 
 ing, or pretending to anfwer, my Recon- 
 ciliation, you content your felf with this 
 fingle Exception againft it, that I cannot 
 pretend to have the leajl Original Evi- 
 dence 
 
Mr. Whiftonx Suspicions. $y 
 
 dence for it: Whereas on the Contrary I 
 have ftrengthened and confirmed it from 
 the Synodicul Epiftle of that Council, the 
 moft Proper Original Evidence in this Cafe, 
 and have alio "Fret ended at leaf! to more 
 Evidence than you have pretended, or e- 
 ver can pretend, to difprove upon any toler- 
 able Grounds from Hiflory and Antiquity. 
 
 XVI. THOUGH Hilary andThabadiits 
 do Almoft exprefsly Contradict Athanafius 
 about the Arianifm of Hofiuss and though 
 Fauftinus and Marcellinus do exprejsly 
 Contradidl Him therein -> yet is Athana- 
 fius to be believed before them aih what- 
 ever they may fay about that matter. 
 
 I THINK I have already fufficiently 
 fhewn that neither Hilary •> novThtehadkis, 
 nor Fauftinus and Marcellinus do either ex- 
 prefsly or almoft exprefsly Contradifl Atha- 
 nafius: but becaufe you defire that this matter 
 may be a little more Confidered, I fliall 
 very willingly fuggeft to you infhortwhat 
 I have farther Obferved upon a Repeated 
 Confederation of the whole Affair at vour 
 T>efire. 
 
 ATHANASlUS's Account of it is, in 
 your own Words, that Ho feus at his T)eath 
 declared) that r jjhat he had done in that 
 Matter was by Compulfion -, and that Ho* 
 feus did then Anathematize the Arians. 
 By this Famous wrnan ' Athanafius s Fi- 
 
 G V'frj 
 
5> 8 A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 delity is to be Tryed> and the JVitneffes 
 againft Him are to be thek Weftern Writ- 
 ers. Now befides what I have already 
 faid, Hilary owns that Fear of Ba- 
 nifhmenc was Hoftus's Motive *: and as 
 to his and 'Phabadius's Writing againft 
 Him without Hopes of his Recovery or Tid- 
 ings of Recantation<>Athana(ius does notpre- 
 tend that he made th\sT>eclaration till juft be- 
 fore his 'Death > and therefore that Objecti- 
 on does not reach the Queftion 3 as I 
 have largely proved in my Anfwer to it. 
 
 BUT Fauftinus and Marcellinuszxz your 
 Two Principal Witnejfes : and yet even 
 They exprefsly affirm, that what Ho- 
 fins did in that Matter was upon the 
 
 * Sepulchri fui nimium amantem. Hilar, de Synod, col. 3 do* 
 I fhall not now difpute whether the Meaning of thefe 
 Words be that Hofius was too Tender of his Old Carkafs, 
 as I find fome Learned Men underftand them ; or rather 
 that he was too Defirous to flecp in the Sepulchre of his 
 Fathers, which was the Senfe that occurred to me upon 
 reading them, and for which I think there may be Good 
 Rcafons given. I cannot deny indeed but it is agreeable 
 enough to St. Hilary's Bold andFigurative Way of Writing, to 
 Underftand the Word Sepulchrum as thele Learned Men do: 
 but however, fince Fear was certainly the Caufe of his 
 Prevarication, I am not much concerned to enquire whe- 
 ther it was the Fear of Bantfhment, or of Death or any 
 other Punifhment. Neither do I underftand it of Banifhmcnt 
 to ferve my oron Purpofe, for it is rather more to my Purpofe 
 that it fhould be the Fear of Death; iince the Greater the K 
 Threatening vvcre which were thought Ncccflary to be ufed, 
 At Lcfs is the Probability of a Voluntary Compliance. 
 
 Prin- 
 
Mr* WhiflonV Sufpiciom. o$ 
 
 Principle of Fear f ; and are therefore 
 fo far from Exprefsly Contradicting A- 
 thanafius, that rhey exa&ly agree with 
 Him as to the Truth of what He 
 makes Hofins ''Declare*, and at the fame 
 time furnifli us with a very good Argu- 
 ment that Hofius did really "Declare this 
 upon his Death-bed. For it is highly Im- 
 probable, that he, who had been fo Zeal- 
 ous a Defender of the Orthodox Faith for/0 
 many Tear S) mould not athisDeath Abjure 
 that Herefy, which he had a little before 
 been frighted into a Compliance with. If 
 Fear of Banifhment, or any other Pun iih- 
 ment, was the Motive of his going over to 
 theArians^Aicn that Motive could no long- 
 er work upon him, as it certainly could 
 not at the Near Approach of Death, what 
 could hinder him from returning to the 
 Profefllon of that Faith, for which he had 
 fo long Contended earnejily, and declaring 
 the Truth (for the Eaie of his own Con- 
 fidence, and in order to prevent the Mif- 
 chief which might be done by Arguments 
 drawn from his Example and Authority) 
 that Fear of Suffering, not Conviction of 
 
 t Sed 8c ipfe Ofius, Potamii querela arceiTitus ad Confhnti- 
 urn Regemjininifcpepcrrerritus, & metucnsnefenex&Dives exi- 
 !ium profcriptionemvc patcrctur, dat ir.anus Impietati, & porl 
 tot aunos pracvaricatur in Fidem. Lib, Frecum p,i4. Ed,Ox° 
 JBodim terrore quo Ipfe cc Herat. Ibid, 
 
 JSXam 
 
ioo A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 Mind, was the Principle upon which he 
 afted in that Prevarication? 
 
 HERE I fuppofe you will readily re- 
 ply, and I think it is the only Objection 
 which can be made, that Hofius dy'dfhd- 
 denly upon one of his AEis of'Perfecution y 
 and Confequently had not time to 
 make this Recantation. But in this you 
 mifreprcfent the Senfe of your IVitneffes. 
 They do not affirm, that he dy'd upon 
 that A£t, as you pretend - y all they fay 
 is this. "As Hofius was juft going to 
 <f pronounce Sentence, of a fudden his 
 * f Mouth was Diftorted, and his Neck 
 <c drawn awry, and tumbling down from 
 "his Seat to theGround he there Expired - y 
 "or, as fome fay, was ftruck Speechlefs : 
 "However, he was Carried off for Dead*. 
 This does not at all clam with Athanafius's 
 Account 5 for he might be Carried off 
 for Dead, and Die foon after, and yet 
 have time enough to declare his Repen- 
 tance. Nay, if this Story be True, it is 
 fo far from deftroying Athanajiuss Ac- 
 count, that it is rather a Confirmation of it ; 
 fince this fudden Stroke from Heaven mult 
 neceflarily awaken his Confcience, and 
 make him (till more ready to "Declare 
 
 * Ecce repente Oiius, cum fententiam conarur exponerc, 
 tit vcrtir, d : fi.^rquens pariter Sc cervicem, de feflu in terrain 
 rliditur, atque illic cxpirat; aur, nt quidam volunr, obmutuit. 
 ladctamcu eficrturutMortuus. Lib. Free. y< 16, 17. 
 
 his 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicioyis. 
 
 IOI 
 
 his Sorrow for that Crime, which had pul- 
 led down this terrible Judgement upon his 
 head. And that Hofias did nor dye upon that 
 yf#, is farther Confirmed by a Letter of 
 Eufebius Bifliop of Vercellt to Gregory 
 Bifliop of Eliberis, in anfwer to an Ac- 
 count fent him by that SpaniJIo Bifhop of 
 the Brave Rejijlance he had made againft 
 Hojius *, in which there is not a word 
 of Hofius's Death j an Incident which we 
 cannot fuppofe that either Gregory in his 
 Account, or Eufebius in his anfwer, could 
 poflibly pafsover,if Hofius had really T>fd 
 upon that A Si of Per [editions for that the 
 Refiftance mentioned in Eufebius 's Epiftle 
 is the fame with that which the two Pref- 
 byters give us this Large Relation of, will 
 not eafily be denied, I believe, by any 
 Man who has Compared and Confidered 
 them. Many other Arguments might 
 be offered : but it is altogether needlefs 
 todwell any longer upon this Matter, after 
 your own IVitneffes* upon a little Crofs- 
 Examination, have rather Confefled, than 
 Denied, the Truth of the FacTr. 
 
 ALLy our fVitneJ/es have now been heard, 
 and there remains nothing for you to do, but 
 to give Sentence,and pronounce your Judge- 
 ment upon the whole j which I find you have 
 
 * Litteras finceritatis tuae accepi, quibus, ut decct Epifco- 
 pum 8c Dei Sacerdotem, Tranfgreflbri tc Qilia d.idici rcftitiflb 
 &c. Hilar. Tragm. col. 433. 
 
 G 3 done 
 
10 2, A Defenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 done in the following Words. In Reali- 
 ty > fo far as I can Judge of that Emi- 
 nent C P erf oris Conduct in thefe Matters , 
 As he diflikid the Rafh and Novel Expref 
 fions of Arius, and his peculiar Followers , 
 and thereupon heartily joirid againft them* 
 both at and after the Council of Nice , fo 
 did he in fome time-, join heartily againft 
 Athanafius and His Followers, when he 
 perceivd they took Occafion from the Con- 
 demnation of the Former, to introduce a 
 more 'Dangerous Herefy on the other Ex- 
 treme. 
 
 HOSlUSi whatever the Rigid Lucife~ 
 rians might think of him, has not deferved 
 fo ill of the Orthodox by this fingle In- 
 stance of Human Frailty, as to be given 
 up to the Arians, and therefore to do 
 Juftice to his Memory, and at the fame time 
 to comolear the Performance of the Promife 
 I made you at the End of my Reply to 
 your Sixth Qbfervatior:, I fliall prove to ^ou 
 very briefly, that thisNew Chara&er, which 
 you have drawn for him, is Ground- 
 lefs and Falfe, and direttly Contrary to the 
 Teftimony of every one of your own Wit- 
 neftfes. And i. To omit his Letter to Con- 
 ftantius, which I fuppofe you will except 
 againft becaufe it is given us by Athanafius, 
 HePrefided andSubfcribed in theCouncil of 
 Sardica, above twenty Years after theCoun- 
 cil of Nice, and till that time therefore was 
 
Mr. Whifton / Sufpicions. 1 o j 
 
 perfectly Orthodox, and an Hearty Friend 
 to Athanafms. 2% The old Ar fans, who, I 
 prefume, were better Judges tfjkiis LonduEt y 
 than you will pretend to be, had a very 
 Different Opinion of him. The /Irian 
 Bifhops, for example, who refufed to fit 
 in the Council of Sardica, Anathematize 
 and Excommunicate him over and over, as 
 one who had always from the beginning 
 favoured and joyned with Athanajius and 
 His Followers-* and afted in Oppofiti- 
 on to them and their Intereft *• 
 3. Your own IVitnejfes, and feveral other 
 Writers, affure us, that what Ho/ius did at 
 SirmitiM) in Compliance with the Arians, 
 was extorted from him by the Violence 
 and Menaces of Conftantius •, which 
 fort of Arguments would have been alto- 
 gether Needlefs, if he had before perceived 
 that the Athanafians had Introduced a 
 more 'Dangerous Herefy than Arianifm. 
 Hofius therefore did not Join againft the 
 Athanafians^ till a little before his Death, 
 above 30 Years after the Council of Nice •, 
 and then, not Heartily^ as you pretend, 
 but Unwillingly, as your JVitnefjes con- 
 fefs. 4. Your Chief JVitneJjes, and Ho- 
 fius s Greateft Enemies, the tvv o Luciferian 
 
 * His itaque ac talibus juncius ab initio Oflius, federal's 
 femper favens, contra Ecclefiam Dei venicbat, & inimicis Dei 
 femper ferebat auxiliuni. Decret. Synod, Orient, apud Sardi* 
 cam, inter Fragment a Hilar, col. 447. 
 
 G ^ Pres- 
 
JC4 A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 Presbyters, notwithstanding it was their 
 Principle to abhor him, and their lntereft to 
 defame him, do not only acknowledge the 
 Violent Methods ufed to pervert him, but 
 alfo farther aflure us, that he continued 
 Zealoufly Orthodox till that time-, having 
 juit before T)ete5ted Potamius,andExcom- 
 municated him as an Impious Heretick-> for 
 Prevaricating and going over to the A- 
 rians -f. And what your other two Wit- 
 nejjes fay of Hojius necerTarily implies that 
 he perfevered in his Orthodoxy till this 
 Unfortunate Accident at Sirmium not 
 long befjre his Death. Laftly, This Cha- 
 rafter, depending entirely upon the Sup- 
 pofition that hojius was neither forced 
 nor frighted into this Compliance with 
 the Avians > cannot be True if that be 
 Falfe, as 1 have proved it to be, and may 
 yet be Falfe though that fhould be True* 
 lince even in that Cafe it would be a much 
 more Probable Account of Hojius' sConduti 
 in thefe matters, to fay he began to Doat, 
 for he was then an hundred Years Old* 
 than that he began to perceive the T)an- 
 
 f Potan-.ius, OdyfTiponae Civitatis Epifcopus, primum qui- 
 dem Fidem Catholicam vindicans, poftea vero pracmio fundi 
 Fifcalis, quem habere concupiverat , fidem praevaricatus eft. 
 Hunc Ofuis de Corduba apud EcclefiasHifpaniarum 8c detexit 
 £c repulit ut Impium Hacreticum. Sed 8c ipfeOfius, Potamii 
 querela arcefikus ad Conftantium Regcm, minifque pertcrri- 
 tus, grc. Libell. Frccumy. 13, 14. 
 
 ger 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Suspicions, i oj 
 
 ger of the Other Extreme* which he could 
 not perceive for thirty Years before. 
 
 XVII. THE Sum of my Anfwer toyour 
 La ft: Sufpicion is, you fay, That becaufe 
 you exprefs your felf with Modefly and 
 Caution in fome Cafes* and had not al- 
 ledged your Evidence in particular* you 
 are to be fuppofed to have not much to 
 fay farther ; and fo you are to be laugh d 
 out of Countenance for all thefe your Suf 
 picions concerning Athanafius. 
 
 THAT Sufpicion deferved no Anfwer 
 at all, much lefs a Serious Anfwer, and 
 indeed was laid fo wideasfcarce to admit 
 of any-, being nothing but a General 
 Charge of Monuments unfupported by 
 any other Original Teflimony (which I 
 had anfwered before) of Stories almofl In- 
 credible* and Chronological Inconfiftencies. 
 The Inftances you had given of Incredible 
 Stories related by Athanafius I had examin- 
 ed in their places, fo that I had nothing 
 more to do there, but to take Notice of 
 the Word almofl in Athanafius's Favour-, 
 having, as I thought, fome reafon to be- 
 lieve, that they, who had Obferved the 
 Boldnefs of your Aflertions upon all Gc- 
 cafions, and your great Prejudice a- 
 gainffc Athanafius* would be very apt 
 to Imagine, that thofe Stories* which 
 feem no more than Almofl Incredible to 
 you, might appear Credible enough to a 
 
 Per- 
 
1 06 A Vefenfe of the Anfaer to 
 
 Perfon of lefs Warmth and Partiality. 
 Not that I iliould pay the lefs Deference 
 to any Author's Judgement, for Exp effing 
 himfelf with Modefty and Caution^ if it be 
 his Ufual Way of Writing 5 I ihould rather 
 take it to be a very Good Proof of his 
 Judgement that he did fo : but this I think 
 I might venture to fay, that an Author, 
 who, is Generally very Confidently in 
 the wrong, is not very Likely to be in the 
 right, when he diftrults himfelf. He who 
 can be very Pofitive, without the Lead 
 Reafon on his fide, feldom expreffies him- 
 felf with ^Diffidence) without very Good 
 Reafon for it. 
 
 TO the Charge of Chronological Incon- 
 ilftencies I anfwered,what I now repeat, that 
 if you had, or have now amongft your Great 
 'DealofNewEvidence&ny fuch to produce ; 
 it would be much more for the Advantage 
 of your Caufe to Communicate them to 
 the World, than fuch Trifling Objeftions, 
 as feveral of your Sufpicions and Obferva- 
 tions manifeftly are. And if you really find 
 your felf in any Danger of being laugtid out 
 of Countenance for them y your only Remedy 
 will be, to give over pretending to blaft the 
 Credit of Great and Good Men by fuch 
 Ridiculous Objections -, for you have taken 
 fuflicientCare already not to be laugh 'd out 
 of Countenance for any Modefty or Caution 
 in your Way of Propoiing and Expreffing 
 them. I HAVE 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Suspicions. 
 
 1C' 
 
 I HAVE now gone through your Re- 
 ReElionS) and finifhed the UnpleafantTask 
 of Detecting fo many Difingenuous Mif- 
 reprefentations: If you think to defend 
 them by a Mifreprelentation full as Difin- 
 genuous asany of them (viz?) that you have 
 written here fomewhat ip my way, and 
 allowed your felf a little of my Liberty of 
 reprefenting things^ or of putting Colours 
 upon them-, I (hall fay no more to it at prc- 
 icnty than that whenever you mail (hew 
 me one Inftance of the like Difingenuity 
 in my Anfwer, or in any part of Athana- 
 Jiuss Works, 1 engage my felf entirely to 
 give up the Defence of them both. 
 
 SO much for your Obfervations, and Re- 
 flections •> I come now to your Character 
 of the Athanafian IVay of Writing, given, 
 as I fuppofe, in order to explain the Com- 
 pliment you was pleafed to make me in 
 the firft Sentence of your Letter, that I 
 write much after the Way of Htm whom I 
 defend. As for Athanafius's Way of Writ- 
 ing, I have already faid fomething in Vin- 
 dication of it> and upon this Frefli Occa- 
 iion I (hall only Obferve one thing more, 
 which is, that the Fathers of the Church 
 in all Ages, following the Example of the 
 Apoftles and ApoftolicalBifhops, have al- 
 ways wrote againft Hereticks in the fame 
 manner: Fired as they were with a Noble 
 Zeal for the Purity of the Faith, they co?i- 
 
 tended 
 
i o 8 A Vefevfe of the Anpwer to 
 
 tended for it more earneftfy, becaute they were 
 more heartily concerned for it, than this La- 
 titudinarian AgeofLukcwarmnefs andGal- 
 lionifm feems to be. And as for my felf, If, 
 whilft I fought for Inftru&ion in the Writ- 
 ings of thole Holy Men, I have been In- 
 fenfibly * Infpired with fome Degree of 
 their Warmth and Vehemence againft He- 
 reticksj I hope I may fafely oppofe their 
 Authority to your Ill-grounded Reproach 
 of Unckriftian Treatment* in which I 
 have the honour to bejoyned with Bi- 
 fhop B U L L f. However, it feems 
 this Unchriftian Treatment you have met 
 with from me has not been able to pro- 
 voke your Chriftian Temper to any 
 thing like a Retaliation -, fo far from it, 
 that I have here your Hearty Trayers for 
 my Repentance and Tardon. This is the 
 True Spirit of 'Primitive Chriftianity in- 
 deed. Who would not think, that Mr. 
 Whijlon had been called Knave and Igno- 
 ramus a thoufand times over, whilft he, 
 Good Man, is fo far from Offering or De- 
 ferving the Lead 111 Ufage, that he dares 
 not return the Greateft - y but, according to 
 
 * Fatcbor aliquid tamen, ut cum in Sole ambulem, etiamii 
 aliam ob caufam ambulem, fieri natura tamcn ut colorer; fie 
 cum iftos libros ftudioiius legcrim, ientio Orationem meam il- 
 lorum cantu quafi colorari. Cic. de Oratore, 1. 2. 
 
 f I am ftrangely furpriz'd at His Lordfhip's Conduct — in 
 writing for it ; and that wish Eagernefs and very Unchriftian 
 and Uncharitable Reflections &c. Prim. Chriftian*Vo\. 4. p. 241 , 2. 
 
 the 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Suspicions. 109 
 
 the Command and Example of the BlefTed 
 JESUS, Trays for thofe that Ttefpitefully 
 ufe him? But 1 believe upon a Little Exa- 
 mination this will appear to be the very 
 Reverfe of the Cafe. 
 
 AS to the Hard Words you charge me 
 with, if they are fo General as you pre- 
 tend (by which I fuppofe you mean Fre- 
 quent) you might eafily have mentioned 
 ibme of them: but fince you have not 
 thought fit to do fo, I muft content my felf 
 with Obferving to you, that you wrong 
 your felf very much in calling thefe Hard 
 Words mine, whatever they are ; fince mod 
 of the Abufive Words our Language af- 
 fords are certainly yours, as far as Con- 
 ftant Ufe and Undifputed PoiTeflion can 
 give you a Right to them. 
 
 WHILSTyou do not fcruple to charge the 
 Church of which you call your felf a Mem- 
 ber,and at the fame time almoft all theChrifli- 
 anChurches {if that be not a Name too Good 
 for them in their prefent Regenerate State*) 
 with Popery, and Antichriftianifm or Oppo- 
 fition to Chrift; with impofing Metaphyseal 
 Jargon, and Random 'Philofophy, for Ar- 
 ticles of Faith ; with polluting GOT>s Sa- 
 cred WorJJjip Grofly and Jhamefully , and 
 maintaining fuch Strange and Pernicious 
 Err ours, zsdijhonour the G of pel 'of CHRIST, 
 
 * Ef[ay o.n the Conftitutions. p. 65, 
 
 and 
 
no A Defenfe of the Anfiier to 
 
 and are fujpcient to difpofe Men to reject 
 the 'Duties*, on account of the Abfurdity of 
 the 'Doctrines, of Chriflianity -, withhold- 
 ing Opinions fatally brought into the 
 Church by Tagan Thilofophy and Anti- 
 chrjftian Tyranny, and derived from the Ce- 
 rmthian^ Bafil^dian, Theodojian, Valentini- 
 an, and other Ancient Hereticks, and thofe 
 too fo monftroufly Ridiculous that 
 none of the IViidefi Hereticks of old ever 
 came to fuch an Height of Abfurdity and 
 Contradiction; and with retaining Anti- 
 chriftian Corruptions^ introduced and fup- 
 ported by the Devil, and his Inflruments * : 
 Whilft you with fingular Modefty, and in 
 the Spirit of M'eeknefs, can folemnly accufe 
 Athanafius, Bafil, Hilary* Jerom, Rufi* 
 mis, Chryfoftom, Socrates, Gelafius Cyz>i- 
 cenus^ arid a Vafl Number of the Orthodox 
 befides, both Antient and Modern, of Anti- 
 chriftianFrauds,znd moft wicked Pra&ices ■£: 
 Whilft all this cannot fatisfy you 5 
 but the Whole Chriftian World muft be 
 Compendioufly abufed at once in the Per- 
 fons of their Reprefentatives aflembled in 
 General Councils, which in great Humility 
 of Mind) and with no Leis Decency of 
 Expreffion, you are pleafed to call the 
 
 * Hiftor.Pref.p. 3. 27. 28. 69. Sf. Primit. Chriftian. Rev 
 vol. iv. p. $0. \i\ 176. aoo. 242. 315". 321. 391. Append, p. 
 15. 18. 19. 
 
 f Eflay on the Constitutions, p. 67^6. 
 
 Grand 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufficions. 1 1 1 
 
 Grand Engine of the *D evil for the De- 
 ftruffion of the Turity of the Chriflian 
 Faith and Trattice *:" Whilft the Great 
 Dignity oftheEpifcopal Order, which your 
 Confutations carry fo very high? cannot 
 reftrain you from treating a very Emi- 
 nent Bifhop of your own Church and 
 Nation very Difrefpe&fully, and fome- 
 times with a very Indecent Air of Neg- 
 lect and Contempt > nor yet from re- 
 prefenting him as Guilty of tranflating 
 Origen unfairly to ferve his own Tur- 
 pofe, of Miferably impofing on his Readers* 
 of Partiality and ^Prevarication, and Un- 
 chrijiian Reflections f : Whilft not- 
 withftanding the Great Serioufnefs you 
 profefs j notwithftanding that Holy Awe 
 and Reverence, which the Dignity, the Im- 
 portance, the Myfterioufnefs of your Sub- 
 ject demanded from you - y notwithftanding 
 the Horrible Apprehenfions of the Dan- 
 ger of Miftaking, which one would think 
 fhouldlie very heavy upon a Man's Spirits 
 at the time when he was actually endea- 
 vouring to pull down the Sonl of God 
 from the Throne of His Father, and 
 make a Creature of Him by whom alt 
 things were Created; notwithftanding the 
 fear and tremblings which can feizeyouup- 
 
 * Prim. Chriftian. Rev. Vol. iv. Append, p. 20. 
 f Prim. Chriftian. Rev. Vol. iv. p. 132. 134. 125-, 152. 
 7/4, \%%. i$9- 237. 242. Append p, 44. 
 
 on 
 
1 1 z A Defenfe of the Anfvoet to 
 
 on Occafion, in pure Commiferation of the 
 Dangerous Cafe of Bp. Bull and the Chrifti- 
 an Churches f ; You can yet be fo little 
 Concerned for your felf ; fo little Sufpici- 
 ous of any Pofllbility, that the Catholick 
 Church for fo many Ages fhould have 
 rightly underftood the firft Fundamental 
 Article of Faith, and the True Objeft of 
 Divine Worlliip, and you fhould have mif- 
 underftood it, and fo little Apprehenfive 
 of the Difmal Confequences, which you 
 have made your felf Obnoxious to, if this 
 fhould prove to be the Cafe -, that you can 
 indulge your felf in fo Unfeafonable a Fit 
 of Profane Mirth and Jefting which is not 
 Convenient* as to Scoff at the Word Tri- 
 nity, and ridicule that Bleffed Name, by 
 which you your felf own that your Crea- 
 tor* Redeemer, and Sanclifier may not im- 
 properly be called ^ .* Whilft almoft every 
 Page in your Writings Prefentus with^- 
 furditiesy Contradictions* Ignorance, Super- 
 Jlition* Jargon, Impious and Antichrtftian 
 Frauds, Injincerity> Grofs Imposition* He- 
 reticky Knave* Unlearned* Ignoramus* 
 "Diabolical Miracles y Infamous Cheats* 
 Wicked Forgeries? Prevarication* Unchrifti- 
 
 f Eflayon the Conflitut. p. 63. Prim. Chriitian. Vol. iv. p. 
 134. 135. 242. 
 
 f Little did the Bifhop of Antioch think what a Famous, 
 Solemn, Sacred Word he had pronoune'd, when he named 
 the Word Trinity, Vol. iv. p. 389. 
 
 an 
 
Mr. Whifton V Suspicions. 1 1 5 
 
 an Reflections, Villainy-) Topery, the T)e- 
 vil, the Engines of the T>evil y the 'Devil 
 and his lnfiraments, See. *f : 1 have been 
 content to borrow fometimes, and retorc 
 upon you, fome of the fofteft of your 
 Hard /Fords, fuch as. Ignorance, Rajhnefs 9 
 uljfurance, &c. And this being the Cafe, 
 I was, I confefs, at firft a little furprized, 
 to find ray felf Accufed of ufing Hard 
 Words and TDefpiteful Language by the Au- 
 thor of Primitive Chrijtianity Revivd. Ic 
 was fome furprize to me, 1 fay, and had 
 been much more fo, had I not been in fome 
 degree prepared for any thing of this Na- 
 ture from a Writer, who in the very Place 
 where he was Profeffedly blackening A- 
 thanajiuss Character, and chat in the Hard- 
 eft and moft Scurrilous Words, could make 
 it an Article againft Him, that He treated 
 His Adverfaries with Unchrijiian Names 
 of Reproach and Scorn. 
 
 IF this be not enough ro fatisfie you,' 
 with how ill a Grace this Charge of Hard 
 Words comes from you, and with how lit- 
 tle Juftice it is fixed upon me > 1 fhall on- 
 ly beg the Favour of you to compare two 
 Parallel Places in your Sufpicions and my 
 Anfwer, in order to your CompleatSatis- 
 
 f Hift. Pref. p. 8. 27. iS. 69. Eflay ontheConft.p. 6j. 489* 
 514. 5-48- 676. 681. Prim. Chriftian. Vol. J v. p.yo. 5 1. 117- 
 147.176.200. 242. 3 l S- 321. 373. 391. Append. p. iy. i&. 
 19. 20.44. -Append, to V. Vol. p. iz. z6- 
 
 H faction 
 
H4 A Defenfe of the /infwer to 
 
 faftion in this Point. In the Clofe of 
 your Fourteenth Sufpicion you exprefs 
 your felf thus. We hence learn either that 
 Athanafius was plainly forced to Trevari- 
 cate and Forge, or that He was an Igno- 
 ramus ; and in the Beginning of your Next, 
 But that all this cannot be chargd on 
 His Ignorance , but is in part deriv'd 
 from His Knavery, is Evident, &c. This 
 Argument of yours I borrowed in anfwer 
 to part of your Laft Sufpicion, and pro- 
 pofed it in the Following Words. "Till 
 <f Mr. JV. (hall be pleafed to tell us which 
 "thefe are, I fliall only anfwer him with 
 "one of his own Dilemma's: If this be 
 "True, it is fomething to hisPurpofe,and 
 "he is an Unwife Man for not Proving it, 
 "inftead of urging fo many Trifling Ob- 
 "je&ionsjlf it beFalfe, he comes under a 
 "worfe Denomination, which I leave him 
 <f to find amongft the Titles he has be- 
 "flowed upon Athanafius. Here, where 
 I turned your own Darling 'Dilemma upon 
 you, if 1 had loved Hard Words* might 
 1 not fairly have turned your own Words 
 upon you too? And if I had done fo, even 
 in that Cafe, it would not 3 1 think, have been 
 a very Modeft Complaint, that you had not 
 more Refpe£t paid you, than you thought 
 was due from a Modern Presbyter to an 
 AntientPatriarch,who while He lived was in 
 Station and Dignity the Second Bifhop 
 
 in 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Sufpicions. 115 
 
 in the Chriftian World, and for His 
 Eminent Piety was Canonized after His 
 Death by the Unanimous Confenc of 
 the Catholick Church. But it feems to 
 call Athanafius, an Ambitious, Unlearned 
 Knave-> an Ignorant Heretick, and a 
 Forerunner of Antichrift* to accufe Him 
 of Prevarication and Notorious Forgeries, 
 of Villainy and Murder, is Innocent 
 and Primitive: To Animadvert upon the 
 Bafenefs and Scurrility, the Uncharitable- 
 nefs and Injuftice, of fuch Language and 
 fuch Imputations, is T>efpitefuh Unchriftian* 
 and, in one Word, Athanafian. 
 
 SO much for General Hard JVords : and 
 if I have made any ^Particular Terfonat 
 Reflections upon you, which are Rajh and 
 Falfe Inflnuations - y I am ready, upon Con- 
 viction, to make you Reparation as Pub-' 
 lick as the Injury. And to fatisfyyou that 
 I am fo difpofed, I do here freely confefs, 
 though you have faid nothing in your Let* 
 ter to extort this Confeffion from me, of 
 Convince me of my Error, that I was mis- 
 taken when I Infinuated that you expert the 
 Millennium about four Tears hence, though I 
 cannot think ll did you any Great Wrong by 
 that bi/inuat ion ; for though you do not ex* 
 pett the Millennium then,yet it is mod certain, 
 that you expect things very nigh as Strange 
 and Improbable. You expect then the 
 End of the Pope's Tyranny, and the Per- 
 
 H 2 iecuciQrt 
 
1 1 6 A Vefenfe of the Anf<wer to 
 
 fecution of the Church, particularly of the 
 Toor Vaudois, who are then to afcendinto 
 Heaven in the fight of their Enemies*. 
 You expert that at this Grand Teriod the 
 Sanffuary fhall be cleanfed x y the At h ana- 
 fian Creed abolifhed 3 , and the Kingdom 
 of the Franks deftroyed 4 ; and that there 
 Jball alfo be a Great Earthquake \ in which 
 7000 Men are to be (lain, and that foon 
 after the Angel is to found the Great 
 Trumpet for the Reft or at ion of the Jews *. 
 You expeEi then the Teriod of the An- 
 tichriftian State* and the Commencement 
 of Chrifis Kingdom 6 -, which words, as 
 they are often repeated in your EJJay 9 fo 
 they might very eafily be underftood of 
 the Millennium by a Man more deeply 
 ftudied in the Revelation than I pretend 
 to be, fuppofing him not acquainted with 
 the Nice \Diftm£lion between the End of 
 the Reign and of the Life of the Beaft -, 
 or between the flrft and fecond Fall of Ba- 
 bylon, which, you fay, has not been enough 
 confidered or regarded by any 7 . 
 
 YOU fee how Ingenuoufiy I have dealt 
 with you and the World in this matter: 
 If you had thought fit to have done fo 
 too, you would not have accufed me of 
 
 (1) Eflay on the Revelation, p. 270, 1. (2) Ibid. p. 270. 
 (3) Primir. Chriftian. Rev. Vol. 4. Append, p. 19. (4) Eflay 
 cm the Revelation, p. i^f. (f) Ibid. p. 271. (6) Ibid. p. 
 Si. 201. SvC. (7) . lb. p. 83. 
 
 rajhly 
 
Mr. Whifton/ Sufpicions. 1 1 7 
 
 rajhly and falfely Infinuating that you have 
 Contradicted your felf in fever at 'Points. 
 Have I not plainly proved it upon you, 
 as well as charged you with it? Havel 
 not refer'd the Reader to the very Pages 
 in your Books, where thofe Contradictions 
 ftand ready to flare him in the Face? 
 Have I not proved, that you have Contra- 
 dicted your felf about the Duration of the 
 Millennium* and multiplied what you for- 
 merly thought a Thoufand Years ' into 
 Three Hundred and Sixty Five Thoufand * ? 
 Have you not altered your Opinion about 
 the Genuinenefs of the Arabick MSS. at Ox- 
 ford, and have you not confeffed it too in 
 the very Page where you complain of 
 me for falfely Injinuating that you have 
 Contradicted your felf? Have you nocfaid, 
 that the Spurious Copies of Ignatius '$ E- 
 piftles were very Trobably made by Atha- 
 nafiusi or one employed by Him about or 
 after the middle of the fourth Century in 
 the very fame Book in which you fay, 
 it is highly ^Probable that neither Atha- 
 nafius Himfelf nor any others of the Or- 
 thodox in the fourth Century ever faw 
 them*? Have you not declared more 
 than once, that you was exceedingly pleafed 
 
 (1) Eflay on the Revelat. p. 17. (1) EiTay on the Refto- 
 ration of the Jew:, p. 23:. (3) Firft EfTay on Ignaiius's 
 Epiftles, p. 7. 40. 42. 
 
 to 
 
 - 
 
1 1 8 A Vefenfe of the Anfwer to 
 
 to fndNovatian agree with you almoft 
 in every thing 1 ? And have you not fince 
 drof)t him and left him to the 'Poffejfion of 
 the Jthanafans, by refufing to maintain 
 your Opinion, and Contenting your felf 
 with this Evafion, That if he be Ortho- 
 dox, you have done the Church a piece of 
 Service by the 'Publication' 1 ? And here, 
 upon your faying, that all thefe Matters 
 fignify nothing to the points in Queftion* if 
 I had any Inclination to recriminate, I 
 might, I think, with lefs Injuftice accufe 
 you of falfely InfinuatingAhat thefe Matters 
 were brought in purely to expofe you* 
 when it is io very plain, that they were 
 prqpofed as Arguments ad hominem in the 
 Particular Cafe of "Dionyfiuss Epiftle. 
 
 1 COME now to the Laft Insinuation 
 you charge me with, which is, that you 
 have Attempted to Injure your Succeffors 
 by cutting down Timber Unfairly upon the 
 Lands of your TrofeJJorJhip. That Pofte- 
 rity will be more concerned in your Quar- 
 rel with Mr. Lucas's Timber-* than with 
 Athanafius* I have affirmed -, that you 
 had any Unjuft Defign in making that 
 fVafty i neither affirmed, nor Infinuated* 
 nor Believed. Ever fince I have been 
 
 (i) Iliftor. Prcf. p. 12. and Pref. to Sermons and EfTays. 
 (i) Fir ft Reply to Dr. Allix, p. i<5, »7- 
 
 Ca- 
 
Mr. WhiftonV Suspicions. 1 1 5, 
 
 Capable of making any Obfervations up- 
 on the Springs and Motives of Human 
 A&s, it has been an Eftabliflied Notion 
 with me, that amongft the Many A&s 
 of Injuftice done every day , very few 
 are done by Men who believe and know 
 them to be fo. In this Principle I have not 
 been at all Staggered by the Ill-natured 
 Maxims, which fome, who would be 
 thought bed to Underftand Human Na- 
 ture, have fixed upon all Mankind, becaufc 
 they found them in their own Selfifli 
 Difpofitions : but I have been very much 
 Confirmed in it from its Agreeablenefs 
 and Conformity to the moft Excellent of 
 Chriftian Graces, that Charity which be- 
 lieveth all things^ hopeth all things* and 
 thinketh no Evil. Upon this Principle I 
 generally fancy my felf able to account for 
 many Sufpicious Aftions, without bringing 
 the Sincerity of the A&ors into Queftion. 
 Upon this Principle, I can eafily charge 
 the Numerous Mifreprefentations, &c. 
 which I meet with in your Writings, up- 
 on the Acknowledged Warmth of your 
 Temper ■, and the Eagernefs 'with which you 
 have entered into your Arian Scheme. Up- 
 on this Principle I can feparate the Fa£fe 
 from the Intention in the prefent Cafe, 
 and believe it Unlawful for you to cut 
 down Timber without the Knowledg of 
 the Truftees, at the fame time as 1 readily 
 H 4 allow 
 
no A Vefenfe of the Avpwer &cc. 
 
 allow and believe, that you would not 
 have done it, if you had thought it Unlaw- 
 ful. And as fpr Infinnating the Unlawful- 
 nefs of the Fa£t, you know very well that 
 it is a very Common Opinion •, and there- 
 fore, inftead of Expoftulating with me, I 
 think you might with more reafon have 
 thanked me for giving you fo fair an Op- 
 portunity of doing your felf Juftice, that 
 Arianifm might have its full Courfe, and 
 not fuffer in its Progrefs for any Falfe 
 Imputation upon its Reviver. But, lay 
 you, what Signifies my Catting do'jvn Tim- 
 ber to the Toints in Queftion? Not very 
 much truly: juft as much as the PafTage 
 in your Sufpicions > which gave me Oc- 
 cafion to mention it, 1 mean the Concern 
 you exprefs for the Chara&er of an Arian 
 with Pofterity, which you very Ingenioufly 
 pretend to fear that feme body or other 
 fhould hereafter rob you of by fame Witty 
 Reconciliation % which Needlefs Appr$heri- 
 fion led me fo far out of my way, after 
 your Example, as to obferve to you, for 
 your Eafe and Quiet in that matter, that 
 your Sufpicions did not feem ftrong enough 
 to be Longlived, and that Future Al..s 
 would in all Probability be more con- 
 cerned in your Cutting down Mr. Lucas's 
 Oaks, than your Knocking down Alha- 
 nafius. 
 
 AND 
 
An Anfwcr to the Charge &c. m 
 
 ANT) now-) Sir, I am come to your 
 Laft Charge againft Athanafius^ where we 
 are to expeil a Certain Account of His 
 c D;Jhonelly. And here it feems infiead of 
 Conjectural Sufpicions, Conviction now is 
 the Word : Inltead of fome Reafons for 
 that Bad Opinion you had entertained as 
 to the Sincerity of /tthanafius, nothing leis 
 is now pretended than Undoubted 'troof- y 
 and that too very Formidably kt out with 
 all the Mathematical Pomp of Three Tro- 
 fofitions , Seventeen 'Demonftrations and 
 a half, and Six Corollaries. As my Adver- 
 faries are here encreafed upon me, by the 
 Acceffion of Two Other Learned and Ju- 
 dicio/tsTerfons, I think I might refufe your 
 Challenge honourably enough, upon the 
 account of fuch Great Odds, and remind 
 you that I undertook to Vindicate Atha- 
 nafms no farther than as He was attackc 
 by your Sufpicions-> and Confequently that 
 if 1 have made good my Anfwers to them, 
 I have gained my point: But fince you 
 have reprefented my Zeal for Athanafim's 
 Reputation to be fo Great, that /// think 
 I can anfjoer you by Half fo Good Argu- 
 ments ', it is not to be doubted but the Tub- 
 lick vuill hear again from me % I chufe to 
 run the hazard of being thought too 
 Officious in the Defenfe of the Truth, 
 rather than It fhould be evil fpoken of by 
 any upon the Occaiion of my Silence. 
 
 THE 
 
1 2 z An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 THE Tropofitions you undertake to 
 ^Demonjlrate are thefe Three. 
 
 I. THAT Athanafius does fever al times 
 ^Direttly affirm, that the Council of Nice 
 did-> even in their Solemn Anathema V, con- 
 demn the Arians for faying that our Saviour 
 was Created i And That He put abroad 
 Copies of 'thofe Anathema's, with the Infer- 
 tion of that Claufe, as Condemned by 
 them. 
 
 II. THAT yet 'tis Certain this Council 
 did not Infert the Word Created into thofe 
 Anathema's -, but rat her > by omitting it, did 
 direftly avoid its Condemnation. 
 
 ill. THAT Therefore Athanafius was 
 Guilty of a Known and Wilful Falfity and 
 Interpolation^ in this Important Matter - y 
 and of Voluntarily Propagating a Notorious 
 Forgery over the Chrifiian World. 
 
 I. AS to your Firfl Tropofition, if I 
 apprehended any danger to Athanafius 
 from it, many things might be faid to in- 
 validate it: but as I am under no fuch 
 Apprehenfions, I fliall only Obferve to 
 you by the way, 
 
 I. THAT the ofazntv Athanafius direff- 
 ly affirms that the Council of Nice did con- 
 demn the word Created, the more Impro- 
 bable it is that He foifted that Claufe into 
 the Anathemas. It may poffibly be Con- 
 fident 
 
forgery againft Athanafius. i % $ 
 
 fiftent enough with the Opinion you have 
 of His Boldnefs<> but it is utterly irrecon- 
 cileable with the Juftice His 'Parts and 
 Senfe have extorted from you, to fuppofe 
 Him capable of frequently quoting a Claufe 
 He had forged Himfelf, and arguing from 
 it, in His Writings againft the Arians, at 
 a time when there were fo many True 
 Copies extant, and fo many Adverfanes 
 ready to make their Advantage of it 5 when 
 the Difcovery would be fo very Eafy, and 
 fo Fatal to His Reputation and HisCaufe. 
 This would have been holding out a Light 
 to His Enemies to fhew them His own Vil- 
 lainy, which otherwife, amongft the Mul- 
 titude of Copies, might poflibly have 
 efcaped unobferved, till Time had made 
 the Dete&ion more Difficult. 
 
 2. YOU have not T)einonftrated> I 
 think, that Athanafius put abroad Copies of 
 thoje Anathemas with the Infertion of that 
 Clauje. As forEufebius's Letter** Dr. Cave 
 is of Opinion that it was not fubjoined to 
 the Book T)e c Decretis by Athanafius: 
 And granting that Athanafius did really 
 fend a Copy of Eufebiuss Letter with His 
 own Epiftle T>eT>ecretis, for the Uie and 
 Satisfaction of His Friend •, yet fince that 
 Letter is a diftinft Work of a Different 
 Author, it is not altogether Improbable, 
 that it might be omitted as fuch by the 
 Firft Transcribers^ and afterwards annexed, 
 
 from 
 
1 14 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 from Socrates , Gela/ius , or fome other 
 Copy, in thofe two MSS in which only 
 we find it 5 upon the account of the 
 Real or Apparent Reference made to it in 
 the Book T>e Ttecretis. 
 
 BESIDES, if the Claufe, \ x*ngw, be not 
 Genuin, why might it not creep into that 
 Copy of Eufebhts's Letter, and into the 
 Epiftle to Jovian , as well as the word 
 xtj^o, into the Synodical Epiftle of the 
 Council of Nice, which Athanajius has no 
 where given us a Copy of, that I remem- 
 ber? Why not as well as kvipx as anc ' **$& 
 into the Copy of the Creed in two MSS of 
 Cyrill ofJerufalem y To xiesov to £ao7n)ih into 
 one of the Copies in the Acts of the Coun- 
 cil of Chalcedony and yLmym 3ecv into one of 
 Socrates s Copies ? in Theodorifs Copy of 
 Athanajius' s Epiftle to Jovian feveral things 
 are added, which are not in Athanaftus's 
 own Copy j and why might not this Claufe 
 be added lb too ?If $ KTtqiv be really Spurious, 
 as You pretend to have c Demonftrated,fmce 
 Athanajius could not have any End to ferve 
 by Forging it (as He certainly could not) 
 what hinders it from being Charged upon 
 the Librarians here, as well as in other 
 Innumerable Inftances of the fame nature? 
 Why might it not as well get into the 
 few MSS we have of thefe Epiftles, as a 
 Thoufand other Spurious words into 
 five times as many MSS of all Sorts 
 
 of 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 125 
 
 of Books, Sacred, Ecclefiaftical, and Pro- 
 fcne? 
 
 I WOULD alfo gladly be Informed up- 
 on what Grounds you arc fo very Pofitive, 
 that thefe voords are found in all thofe very 
 Few MSS. They are all on the other fide 
 of the Water, and therefore I prefume you 
 will not pretend to have found this Claufe 
 in them your felf : The Editors fay nothing 
 of the matter^ and whether their Silence 
 will juftify your Bold AfTertion, 1 leave 
 you to confider at your Leifure. Your 
 Acquaintance with MSS , I am very well 
 fatisfied, is but fmall, and by no means 
 fufficient to bear you out in making fo 
 Free with them, as you do here, and in 
 feveral other Places. 
 
 II. I PROCEED now to your Second 
 
 Tropo/ition, which is to be iJemonftrated 
 
 by going over all the feveral Numerous Copies 
 
 of the Anathemas, that have been Obferved 
 
 during the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. 
 
 And here, Sir, before I begin to examine 
 
 thefe feveral Numerous Witneffes, I muft 
 
 Obferve to you, as a very great Defe£t in 
 
 your Scheme, that you have not brought 
 
 any Proof at all, though you ought to 
 
 have put it beyond all doubc, that thofe 
 
 Writers, who have this Claufe, Tranfcribed 
 
 it from Athanafius. Two fuch there are 
 
 at lead, Socrates and Gelafius Cyzicenus: 
 
 both 
 
1 16 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 both thefe, you fay, copied from Athana- 
 Jius, and that becaufe they could have the 
 Claufe from no other Copy. But this Plea- 
 fant Argument manifeftly begs the Main 
 Queftion, proceeding and depending en- 
 tirely upon the Suppofition that this 
 Claufe is not Genuine, and was therefore 
 not to be found in any Books or Archives* 
 any Record or other Copy of thofe Ana- 
 themas then extant: That is to fay, you 
 will T)emonf}rate y that they could have it 
 from no other Copy but that of Athanafius, 
 provided it be Granted you, that it was 
 Forged by Athanafius, and to be found no 
 where elfe. And this, it feems, is to pafs 
 for Mathematical T>emonftration, Full Evi- 
 dence, and Legal Conviction. 
 
 WITH refpeft to Socrates indeed you 
 ofFer at another Reafon, or rather a Piece 
 of a Reafon : We have, you fay, Almoft 
 Another Teftimony that Socrates took this 
 Claufe from Athanafiuss fince Rufinus,from 
 whom otherwife he mufl mofl Trobably have 
 taken it, has nojign of it in his Copy. This 
 1 have already anfwered at large, p. 9, 10, 1 1, 
 12, 13. whither I refer you; Obferving 
 only, that this Argument, as well as the 
 former, proceeds and depends upon the 
 Suppofition of the Main Point in Debate. 
 You take it for Granted, that the Claufe 
 was Spurious, and no where extant in any 
 Authentic Copy , otherwife what need is 
 
 there 
 
Forgery againjt Athanafius. 117 
 
 there of Concluding, that he mufl Troba- 
 bly take it from Athanafius^ becaufe Rufi- 
 nus has it not? A Mathematician may do 
 Great things by the help of a Small Toftu- 
 latum: but certainly this is a very Poor 
 Caufe of yours, which cannot be Main- 
 tained without Begging the Queftion thus 
 Continually. 
 
 ONE thing more feems Convenient to 
 be done before 1 enter upon the Exami- 
 nation of your Witneffesi and that is to fet 
 down a Copy of the Nicene Creed and 
 Anathemas in Greek and Latin, with 
 fuch Various Readings as you have given 
 -me occafion to Obferve. The Greek 
 Copy I fhall chufe for this Purpofe , 
 in Deference to your Judgment, lhall be 
 that which Eufebius gives us in his Letter* 
 as it is inferted by Theodorit into his 
 Hiftory, for that being, in ydur Opinion, 
 a True Copy of Eufebius s Letter, mud 
 confequently in your Opinion contain a 
 True Copy of the Nicene Creed. I fhall 
 alfo at the fame time give the Collation 
 of the two Copies in Epiphanius y the Ex- 
 fo fit ion of the Creed in Athanafius ^ and Sozo* 
 mens Exatt Account of the Anathemas 5 
 that every Reader may be able to Judge 
 for himfelf of the Truth of what I fliall 
 have occafion to fay, when I come to con- 
 fider them in their Order. 
 
 niSTBTOMEN 
 
1 1 8 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 rZui 4* $ e-s f era. KutAov 6 lyco'v X&^i t ijoij 
 5 ^e« 7 yvw&vm && 2? 7rcLTpo$ 8 juovoyev>i £> 
 T8tI<xv Ik tUs v<nz$ rS vnzrpos IO, Seov ex 
 3i8 iij xcq 12 <p& ht (purls, Srtov I J ex, 3eS 
 aA^fWj ygywj^gi'Ta, « ■# oiyfrevnx, , cfAObcnw Tof 
 *jrc{.Te} 14, Ji' « m 7t£vtdl lyivuo If, to 7s 
 
 l6 ci T& 17 i^cLvZ l8 5t<Xi ip 77X, 20 cV TH 
 
 yvT 2T, t <h* tf,u&s T85 0Lv3rpa7C*3S 22 59 O/,^ 23 
 
 Tfcl) Y\tAlTi£M QZOTiieJlZV KCLTtXMrta 24, X.OJ 2 f 
 
 (i) Omit W»7zy»Baf. i. Alex. Carth. 1.2. Gelaf. (ij om. 
 7 £ Niccph. Socr. 2. inf. W»tz»> Gclaf. Baf. 1. (3 J read 
 cio&reir Tg £ S&tuv Epiph. 2. (4) r. jrcr/jr^) »^v5 ri yjy 
 
 yifet ozyruv ri ttuvt&v <£ cto&Tuv* Epiph. 1. ($■) inf. t»* 
 
 Athan. in fome MSS. (6) inf ij^»v Baf. 1.2. Car. I. r. cW 
 fjyvoyiv* fyot Soc. 2. (7) inf. r fsynyu* Epiph. 1. Eph. 1. 
 Cyr. A. 2. r. r fynft&fo Epiph. 3. Car. r.2. Chal.4. (8) om. 
 tS Euf. 4, (9) r. rov ftsvoysw Eph. 4. Cyr. A. 3. om. pote- 
 yvyi Eph. 1. Cyr. 2. Exp. Soc.2. r. r c* § 7nx,TO^<; fymfii*™ 
 <stf3 'xxIvtuv t 2 uta»e/t. Epiph. I. (10) inf. dvccpx,*/; Cyr H. 
 
 for Trutflc r. «oV2 Eph. 4. Cyr. A. 3. (1%) om. ^ov 0* ^ek 
 Baf. 1. Epiph. 1, (1 2) om. «^Euf. 2.3. 4. Cyr. H. Baf. 1. 2. 
 Car. 1.2. Theod. Soc. 1. 2. Eph. 1.3.4. c y r - A. 1.2. 3. Ch. 
 1.3.4. Gel. Alex. Ath. Epiph. 1.2. 3. Exp.Nkfeph. (13) inf. 
 *X»3»h Eufeb. 2. 3. 4- Baf. I. 2. Cyr. H. Car.i. 2. Soc. 1.2. 
 Eph. 1.3.4. Cyr. A. 1.2.3. Ch. 1.3.4. Gel. Ath. Nic. Theod. 
 Epiph. 1.2. 3. Alex. Exp. ( 14J inf. *7/iWCyr. H. (if) r. 
 A' » twoiW rh cuavus Eph. I. in the Margin. Cyr. A. 2. in 
 the Margin. (16) om. rt Gel. (17) om. x&f Euf. 4. 
 
 Car. 1. 2. Epiph. 3. ( 18) r. tt?? s^mIs Epiph. 1. 2. (19) 
 for y}a read to'tt Euf. 4. Car. I. (20) om. W Baf. 2. 
 
 (2 1 ) om. id 7T c* T&f jjgavcf*? m cv tJ y«. Alex. r. tV* r y*s 
 Ath. Epiph. 3. Soc. 2. Theod. Exp. inf. e^&t 7* kJ do<yc& 
 Exp. Kpiph 2. (22J om. t«$ cltjj> units Alex. (23) om. 
 ^ Alex. (24) inf 0* t *g$tr«» Baf. 1. 2. Ch. 4. Epiph. 1. 
 (2f) om. ^ Cyr. H. Baf. 1. Alex. Ch. 1. Theod. Exp. 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 119 
 
 t 7roL$ov'& 2p 5 xa] 30 k\cL<?aunau 3 I tw rexrii 
 ty*«g£ 3 2 j iveA0wTct els tbs 33 agctvas 3+) 
 lpX°t^ 0i 3? ^6"^ £2k1<*4 $ vexps$ 36* xocj 37 
 
 (26) inf. jjc TMvpciT®' dylx k. (JttecfUs t 2 Ttttpfyv Ch. 4« 
 Epiph. I. inf. t*t/$j $/»jj^sy7aj 7iA«'«« ix. I s «ju'*s$ pcce/as t 2 
 deiirccffiv* 2^ iriiopxTDs dyix Epiph. 2. (27J om. •£ Euf. 
 
 2. 3. Theod. Cyr. H. Baf. 1.2. Ath. Ch. 1. Epiph. 2. Exp. Nic. 
 (28) inf. ^uvoo^ivru ti i;rfp >:f&wV iirl Tnvr.a 7nXUrtS. Ch. 4. 
 Epiph. I . inf. TVTi<n rsMtov xv%U7rav Xafiov'fa,, •tyvftw. t£ azo/w* 
 t£, ixv, x} trIvtU) h t\ iw» d»Jpair&', X^^S ctfAxpTat, One ^» 
 trmpfi&loq etvtyos, aA v ci x'»Jpu7ra } ecX^ tic, ixvroy <mpx.x xtx'B%x- 
 fwfei us l&i'xv ccylxv sroTYifc & f^JzcTnp cjv <is&$vtuis ci*5r» Sues it 
 G iXcitom j^ cv(ipyy)<rBv> ecfax 7iMl*>$ c*ce*Jpa7rt<nM&.' 6 Y> Pioy®* 
 trvip% iyivirv, & rgfirhj -Jsjztx^, vdi fJtts&£<zhv9 rlw sxvtS fyoTvfr 
 its cc*Jpa>7T0T})'^' us y^cw Tuvtvciaixmc IcivTH xylet* nXaort}^ rs 
 id, planum' ih yip sn» x.i>g/&* lijtrSs X,ZM*S> £ * om» * ccurcs < )i«S% 
 6 cctros xt/g,*©-, enures fiountevs- Epiph. 2. inf. tstfsi prvnfyfo 
 nXiiets Ik (&&«* f cl&7ntp%it ^) nnvfiafSTts oZyix, nif^. *£ 
 
 'tyvjCW *? "**> G TTlX-VTDt. 007* tilt OtvJpttirOlS %0}gU XfAXpTXS 0iXV)6iW<i 
 
 tyy & hxioi i%i)K07ze. Exp. inf. yjj Epiph. I. Soc. 2. Ch. 4. 
 (19) inf. Koci 7a(pi*7ii Epiph. 1, Ch. 4. Cyr. A. 1. inf. 7vc<piv7t& 
 Gel. Euf. 4. Cyr. H. om. 7*w%'»m Baf 1. inf. ri rov dvw ci 
 aztpxl Epiph. 2. inf. rgrt-n &tvga>fy7K, 7v.<pi\>7tt Exp. (30) om, 
 £ Alex. (i\) r. t$ re/rvf wtgx x»x&e'v{& Car. 2. (*2jom. 
 rif retry ifbt^ct Alex. Epiph. 2. inf. xxtk ra\ y^<pus Ch. 4. 
 Epiph. I*, inf. j^Ch.4. Cyr.H. Gel. Car. 1. Ath. Alex.Eph.5. 
 Epiph. 1.2. Exp. (3?) om. w« Soc. 2. Euf. 2. Cyr. A. 1.3. 
 Eph.4. Exp. (34) inf. >£ icetfy&tBfiov ci h%i£ 2f ttzct^s, t§ 
 
 -mtXu. Car. 1. Cyr. H. Gel. Ch. 4. Epiph. 1. inf. ^ 6, h\i$ 
 i? 7rct,Tfos Kufyyfyov, ^ Eph. 3. inf. >£ Wa^ Car. 2. Alex. inf. 
 >£ Socr. 2. Nic. Euf 2. inf ci aurd -rd entail v»oHl,cis x.ctQ'urcw'fc 
 ov hliZ $ varys Epiph. 2. Exp! ' (35J inf ^? &i>j$ Ch.4. 
 Epiph. 1. inf. ci ctuTJ tzj 1 <ro/<^^ ci iV£if Epiph. 2. Exp. 
 C36J inf. & t?? PekcitoUs cm frwy riA(^- Ch. 4. Epiph. 1. 2. 
 E X P« (37,) * n ^- mnvofip Exp. 
 
 6* 
 
130 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 u$ to <iyiov 38 Tcnvim, 35;. 
 
 TOYS 3 ^V^ 5 ^ 71 40 Wots 4 1 m 42 ax. w 
 43>$ 4+ z 7 ^ 4? 7«^|ft»iN c^ k£ 46, $ 47 
 
 (58) inf. uurS Gel. (39) r. to imfa* to «po* 
 
 Euf. 3. Ch. 5. 4. Ath. Alex. Eph. 1. 4. Cyr. A. 2. 
 3. Nic. Epiph. l. Exp. r. to *nZf& *por Car. 1. 
 inf. to xv&o' To &***&f Ch. 4. inf. xti&tov xj guoz-oto't 
 to ix 5 •xa.Tiot, Ix^ro^ivofOpov, to trot irctTQJ id, vl(S oviie$t)irxvi&~ 
 ffyov *j mih\et$>li*iiott tv X*X*oTx.t 2^ t <SJ&^>t}Tui' eiq fjttiecr ec }*- 
 at tyfaXtiaif k) >*a&\tx\' ixKhwav. o/^9XoyS/Sfi s» fittxTio- /y& «"« ct~ 
 <Pi9i* eiw? 71 " 7 ' G3&<rfoxv(**P <^vUf»<nt tsxgmt xj £««» § fAiXbotT*; 
 ttlm&'i ct(/jlou. Epiph. I. inf. to XecMozct Cv vofJttqi* <£ rJi£v%xv 
 cv rots aj&<pv>™i$> *$ k&tkGxp g7ri T \o£o\£ti)i> XccXovv ov &nfi- 
 ?iotf,' olxSr cv * pots' xtus 0$ Tnfiuoujp&t ocuTUt '071 tfj Trnvftcf, fytos 
 it*sZ[/jx, tzX&ov, Trnv/Asi yntoxx.'KviTiVi otxnw, C* & wetTg^s cic»T>- 
 givo'fy-ov, Vj csx § bud XoUhZaioWfJoi yZj 7nfsuo(AsioY, mftvofittt W« 
 
 fJClcCV XOtJoXtXtl* Vj a&t&XiZilV kKK.Xnoict,V, yffJ\ «5 £9 fitt,X7irfJbCC fit£- 
 
 tuvo'.as-, v&n f*§ UtecfSiOl* Vfxgav, £ xg/n» fixed ctf ^v%wv ($ <mpi*~ 
 Tret. x} ei$ fixcnheict* xcyav, x} hc, £wt)* cyctttot. Epiph. 2.in£*» 
 chc ctfaore/ov ttzct^s xj vloo, oLlts, hfAsdnop ov 'mt.Tgjl Xj viu> 7$ 
 
 MX.71&9, TO TiXHOV, TO Tm^xXiJTSP, T$ XccXtOZtV ci Po^ttCf & CV 49&~ 
 
 Qt'mtc, <£ h tuxyytXiois' ^tu^xi Im to* 'toffbepyv, x^u\ck.p %&z<&- 
 Xots, olxoZt ci ecyiots' x} 7n&ucyutr lie, yutxp (JHovqy tkuttj* }&QoXiKr\9 
 •e) ^n&Xtxw i>cy.foj}cif, uc, $* (^ocxrKr^u. p,nw otxc, y^ d<Pttt6)$ 
 
 tUfJIfCi^VsJp, «? XVCifUmv V£XgUv> ZlC, X2J01* cad' 19' '$/V%V9 Ti £ CTti- 
 
 ffiocrzdt, «'? fia,ntei«.v ov^ruv, y^ £ojhp ctlunov* Exp. 
 
 C40) Om.«j Euf. i. 3. 4. Alex. Ath. Cyr. H. Baf. 1. 2. 
 Gel. Car. 1. 1. Soc. 2. Ch. 1.3.4. Eph» 1. 5. Cyr. A. 1. 2. 
 Nic. Soz. Epiph. 1. 3. (41) om. Ttvn Car. I. for vn-n r. 
 xoufU Car. 2. Alex. (42) om. Sw Soc. 2. C43) mCobtog 
 m to xtivfrct to otytov Epiph. 2. inf Im, k ni. vxvti ots cm h Tt 
 oiytc mvpec Exp. (44.) for xj read « Euf. 3. Nic. Cyr. A. 
 I. (45- ) fror Tptt r. «O x ?■ Car. 1. (4,6) om. t£ reA» 
 yti'nQhtq chc ?>• Car. 2. Alex. Epiph. 2. Exp. and the Old 
 Tranflarfon of Eph. 1. ap. Lup. tor ir&iv ytvrndweu cthc »» r. 
 dry n* jt^ii yw^feu Euf. 3. Nic. Cyr. A. 1. (47J for >£ 
 v.* Exp. Epiph. 1, 2. 
 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 1 3 ? 
 
 ott 45 g£ Qra. ova* v tymTOy » t* sts- 
 pcu; 49 ^l^arcj^crE^? >j 50 «cna$ fl tydo-xcv 
 f ]ci4 fi eT/ca f 3 75*67^ 54 jjiMowTMfJ ri.h 
 V BtS f6 ctVa9g^«.77^<( j? y\kyiOL J 8 x*9©Aj/0»! J5> 
 
 CREDIMUS in unum Deum Patrem 
 Omnipotentem, omnium 1 yifibilium & 
 invifibilium fa&orem 2. Et in 3 unum 
 
 C48; for i§ on r. j} Eu£ 3. Nic. Cyr. A. 1. (49) 
 
 inf. 7?>cs Eph. 1. Cyr. A. 2. for J7r««$ r. «^, ; Car. 
 
 1. fto) om. LWefaW»5 h Car. 1. (yij om. 3 
 ct5:nW Cyr. H. (5*2) for ^xnconu^ r. Xspunzq Car. l. om. 
 (peio-KovTuq AJex. Car. 2. S02. (55) om. «»«« Car. 1.2. Soz. 
 Alex, after eT»xf inf. ^ Eph. 1. Cyr. A. 2. inf. 2 Cyr. H. Car. 
 
 2. Soc. 2. Baf. 1 . 2. Alex. Gel. Eph. 5. 4. Cyr. A. 3. Soz. 
 
 Epiph. 3. Ch. 1. n,f. t, ktk^v 5 Euf. 2. 3.4. Athrm.Theod. Socr. 
 
 1. Niceph. Cyr. A. 1. r. $drxov-mc, ilvsu rov Wet % ^ocf, » t» x 
 
 jrnZprK to uyioi, rgix-Tov h ec^otturev Exp. (fq.) r. uvea 
 ptw&v h xX^oicttrcv Epiph. I. ($?) r. uXXoiutdv < 7££xto» 
 
 Car. 1. f$6) om. «n>\ £<o* § ^wj' Soz. inf. 3 79 uytot 
 
 TrviZfiiot, Epiph. 2. r. vtv ? 'B-ioS biov Epiph. 1. inGaWra*. Theod. 
 Euf. 2.Ath. Cyr.H. Baf. 1. Car. 1. Soc. 2. Exp. Ch. 1.3.4. 
 Eph. 1.3.4. Cyr. A. 2.?. Epiph. 1.2.3. Nic. inf. T »« t»«»Vk? 
 Baf 2. Gel. Car. 2. Alex. Cyr. A. 1. (5-7) canxH£vZ*9 <£ 7^5 
 xstQaXx ZMx.\vi<r.&s ettiboTaixq i\y,(p\<miTi Soz. r. u»x,JtfAxr.^ofjiitv en 
 uutxs tiiofyi*j*.TiZ<a- Exp. (*;%) om. ec-yix Exp. Euf. 2.3.4. 
 
 Gel. Cyr. H. Alex. Baf. 1.2. Soc.2. Car. 1.2. Eph. 1. 3.4. Cyr. 
 A. 1.2.3. Cn - J«4" Epiph. 1. 2.3. Nic. inf. 3^ ^ Eph. 3. 
 f fo) inf. ^^p «;*»» Exp. (60J om. ^7js»;wxj» Euf. 2. r. 
 ^rr^Aiy^ £ k«%W>» Euf. 4. Eph. 4. Cyr. A. 3. Ch. 1. 3.' 
 (61) add 5 , 9 l0 ' J Soc.2. add i, yumo 1/ji>uv n >£ if***' t£ '7m- 
 
 Pup etvx^tf//cx,Ti^of/jir rfcS /uu*i 6 fA$*\oy 'oZv'i&C ctrufuctf viy.puy, £ "ffu- 
 czs? 7K? ulgtC7i<i rue, |w,u c.% -tk{;7>?5 I s o'p^<; 7r!rc&><; Vans. Epiph. It 
 add «j «ka^u»^r;^{it»jv 7TMV7W5 r»q /(Aii ofAoXoyQvTus tt»x'fU(ri» 
 
 CTJtpKoS, xj 7TV,(TZX,i UlOSCiVy T%Tzn TZC, fJt/l) 0VTU% C4C 7K(;T1JjJ T 8 TtlfttVi 
 
 -^ «;•*';*« (c 1 /«/avi}5 »-.et^BA**?5 ix.yA>)0icis. Exp. 
 
 1 om. omnium Luc. 
 
 2 Conditorem Car. 3. m£, coeli & terrae Eph. 2. 
 
 3 om. r» Naz. 
 
 I * Do. 
 
i } i An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 Dominum noftrum4 Jefum Chriftum Fili- 
 vm Dei 5, natum ex 6 Patre 7 Unigeni- 
 tum 8 hoc 9 eft de fubftantia Patris> 
 Deumex 10 Deo, lumen ex 11 lumine 12, 
 Deumverum de 13 Deo vero, natum non 
 fa&um, unius fubftantiae cum Patre, quod 
 Graece 14 dicunt c/jtsmov if, per quern 
 omnia fafta funt 16 quae in coelo 17 
 & j 8 in terra 19, qui propter 20 noftram 
 falutem defcendit de coelis 21 & incar- 
 natuseft 22, 8C23 homofadhiseft 24, &Z25 
 
 4 otn.noftrumHll. 2. Eph. 2. Luc. Car. 3. Ch. 2. • 
 
 5 inf. umgtnitum Hil. 2. Eph. 2. 
 
 6 r. de Hil- 2. Naz. Ruf. Luc. Car. 3. 
 
 7 r. de Patre natum Ruf. 
 
 8 om. umgenitum Eph. 2. Hil. 2. Luc. r. XJmcum Naz. inf.. 
 Ante omnia faecuUEiph. 2. 
 
 p hoc Naz. Luc. Car. 3. Ch. 2. 
 
 lor. */e Hil. 2. Naz. Luc. Car. 3. Ch. 2. 
 
 11 r. </e Hil. 2. Naz. Luc. Car. 3. Ch. 2. 
 
 12 om. Deaw ex Deo, Lumen ex Lumine Eph. 1, 
 1% ex Ruf. 
 
 14 Graea Hil. 2. Naz. Luc. Car. 3. 
 
 ij- r. Sfjuotricv Patri hoc eft ejufiem cum Patre fubftantiae 
 Ruf. r. ccnfubftantialem Patri Ch. 2. Eph. 2. 
 
 16 inf. jive Hil. 2. Naz. Luc. Car. 3. inf.ef Ch. 2. 
 
 17 roe//* Ruf. Car. 3. 
 
 18 for & . yfoe <2«^e Hil. 2. Naz. Luc. Car. 3. inf. quae 
 Ruf.Ch.2. 
 
 19 inf. funt. Luc. r. term Car. 3. om. quae in coelo & 
 in terra Eph. 2. 
 
 20 inf. nos & fropterRui. inf. «w homines & proper Hil. 2. 
 Naz. Eph. 2. Luc. Car. 3. Ch. 2. 
 
 2i om. de caelis Hil. 2. Naz. Ruf. Luc. Ch t.Eph. 2. Car. 3. 
 
 22 inf. de Spiritu Sanclo Car. 3. inf. de Sfiritu Sanfto & 
 Maria Virgine Eph. 2. 
 
 23 om. & Hil. 2. Ruf. Luc. 
 
 24 om. eft. Ruf. Car. 3. for homo f ictus eft r. inhuman** 
 tut eft. Ch. 2. r. humanatus eft Eph. 2. 
 
 25 om.f> Hil. 2. Naz. Ruf. Luc, Car. 3. Ch. 2. 
 
 paflus 
 
Forgery againfl Athanafius. 1 3 j 
 
 pafius eft, & 26 refurrexit tertia die, & 
 27 afcendit in 28 coelos 25?, venturus 30 
 judicare vivos & mortuos 31. Etin3Z 
 Spiritum Sandum. 
 
 EOS autem qui dicunt erat 33 quan- 
 do non erat, & antequam 34 nafceretur 
 non erat, & quod 35- de 36 non 37 ex- 
 tantibus 38 faftus eft 39 vel 40 ex 41 
 aha 42 fubftantia 43 aut 44 eirentia 47 
 dicentes 46 efTe 47 convertibilem & mutabi* 
 
 26 om. $» Naz. Luc. 
 
 27 om. & Hil. 2. Eph. 2. Naz. Luc. Car. 3. Ch.2. 
 
 28 r. ad Naz. 
 
 29 coelum Luc. inf. /We Naz. Ruf. Car. 3. 
 
 30 in£ /We Ch. 2, 
 
 31 inf Credimus Luc. 
 
 32 om. «» Naz. 
 
 33 r. dicentes autem erat^ Eph. 2. inf. aliquando Ruf. Ch».5. 
 34. priufquam Hil. 2. Eph. 2. Naz. Luc. Car. 3. 
 
 3f 3»/a Hil. 2. Car. 3. Ch. 2. Eph. 2 Luc. Ruf. 
 
 36 e#. Ruf. Hil. 2. Luc. Car. 3. Ch. 2. 
 
 37 nullis Hil. 2. Ruf. Luc. Car. 3. 
 
 38 fubftantibus Ruf. exiftentibus Car. 3. Ch.2. 
 
 39 inf. quod Graeci hexuconton dicunt Hil. 2. r. O 1 qui ex ni~ 
 hilo facium Ambr. 
 
 40 aut Ruf. Amb. 
 
 41 om.ex Hil. 2. 
 
 42 4/?fftt Ch. 2. 
 
 43 fubfiftentia Ruf. Ch. 2. Eph. 2. 
 
 44. five Hil. 2. W Ruf. Car. 3. Ch. 2. 
 4f 0«//a Amb. fubftantia Ruf. Eph. 2. Naf/flvi Car. 
 3. om. aut ejfentia Luc. 
 
 46 dicunt Ambr. Ruf. 
 
 47 om. e/e Hil. 2. Luc. Car. 3. om. &quod de non ex* 
 tantibus fablui eft vel ex alia fubftantia aut ejfentia it* 
 sentes ejfe Naz, inf. aut Amb. Ch. 2. Eph. 2. 
 
 1 3 lew 
 
134 ^ n dnjver to the Charge of 
 
 lem 48 Deum 49, hos 50 anathematizat Ca- 
 tholica ji Ecclefia. {Hilar.de Syn&ol* 35: 8.) 
 
 48 r. mutabilem &convertibilem Hil. 2. Amb. Luc. Car. 3. 
 r. T$iXToi (M* convertibtlem vel mutabilem Ruf. r. mu- 
 tabilem vel convertibtlem Naz. r. mutabilem' aut converti- 
 btlem Ch. 2. r. aut convertibtlem vel mutabilem Eph. 2. inf. 
 */e Naz. 
 
 49 r. Filium Dei Hil. 2. Naz. Ruf. Luc. Eph. 2. Car. 3. 
 Ch.i. r. Dei Filium Amb. 
 
 jo om- bos Amb. Ruf. 
 
 51 inf. & Apoftolica, Hil. 2. Amb. Naz. Ruf. Luc". Car. 
 3. Ch. 2. Eph. 2. 
 
 The Abbreviations are as follows, 
 
 Alex. The Copy from Alexandria and Constantinople, ap.Be- 
 vereg. Pand. Tom. 1. p. 674. Amb. St. Ambrofc'sCopyof the 
 Anathemas, L. \.de¥ulec. iS- col. 467. Ed. Ben. Ath. Atha- 
 nafius's Copy in His Epiftie to Jovian. Baf. 1. Bafil, Tom. 3. 
 Epift. 6o.p.9o. Baf.i. lb. Ep. 78. p. 1 38. Car. 1.2.3. Tne 
 Copies in the Acts of the Council of Carthage, Ap. Labb. T. 2. 
 p. lop. 1146. if93« Ch. 1. 2, 3.4. The Copies in the Acts 
 ofthe Council of Chalcedon, ap. Labb. T. 4. p. 133. 285. 339. 
 563. Cyr.A* 1*2.3. Copies in the Works of Cyrill of Alexan- 
 dria, T.5.p. 389. 90. T. 6. p. 69. 177. Cyr. H. The Copy in 
 the two MSS. of Cyrill of Jeruialem. Eph. 1.3. 4. Copies in 
 the Acts of the Council of Ephefus, ap. Labb. T. 3. p. 398. 
 672. n8?- Eph. 2« Another Copy in the fame Acts, ap. Baluz.- 
 p. 458. cut off in the beginning with an &c. in Labb. p. 4^9. 
 JEpiph 1.2.3. Epiphan. Ancor. p. 122, 3. 123^4. Panar.H. 72. 
 p. 843 ,4. Euf. 2. The Copy in Eufebius's Epiftie as it is given us 
 byAthanafius. Euf. 3. The fame in Socrates. Euf.4.. The fame 
 in Gclafius Cyzicenus. £x/>.TheExpofition ofthe Creed among 
 the Works of Arhanafms.Tom, I. par. 2. p. 1278, 9. Gel, The 
 CopyinGelafius. Hil. 2. Hilar. Fragment, col. 41 r, \6. Luc. 
 The Copy in Lucifer Calaritanus, De nonparcendoinDeum De- 
 linquentibus. Naz.. The Copy in Gregory Nazianzen's Works 
 p. 727. Nic. A Copy in Nicephorus's Eccieiiaftical Hiftory 
 1. viii.c. 17. p. 568. Ruf* Rufinus's Copy, H. E. L. 1. c.6. 
 p. 198. Ed. Parif. Soc. 1. 2. Socrates, 1. i.e. 8. p. 19- I. iv. 
 c. 12. p. 1 8 1. Soz. Sozomen's Exact Account.!. 1. c. 21. p.3IT- 
 Theod. The Copy in Athanafius's Epiftie to Jovian ap. Thcodo- 
 rit. ,E. H. 1. iv. c.3. p. 1/4. . 
 
 THE 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 1 3 j 
 
 THE Ufe of this Collection will foon 
 appear: In the mean time I fhall only de- 
 fire you to confider the Largenefs of it. 
 I much queftion whether the moft Dili- 
 gent Searchers after Various Readings 
 can find fomany,within the fame number of 
 words, in all Antiquity. I do not fay 
 this with any Defign to magnify my 
 own Diligence in Collating thefe Co- 
 pies, which might have been done as well 
 by any Man who* can read j much lefs 
 with an Intention to caft a Reflection up- 
 on the Venerable Fathers of the Church, 
 and other Ecclefiaftical Writers, from the 
 Marks of Negligence fo Vifible in the Co-* 
 pies they have given us of this Creed, 
 moft of which may much more reafon- 
 ably be charged upon their Tranfcribers. 
 All I would Obferve from it is, that 
 a Word fo well attefted as jch^ is, even 
 upon your own State of the Cafe, cannot 
 bereje&edas Spurious, with any AJfurance 
 upon the Teflimony of Witnejfes, who 
 are fo little agreed amongft themfelves 
 which Words are Genuin and which Spu- 
 rious. But I proceed to your Proofs. 
 
 I. YOUR Fir ft Witnefs is Eufebius, in 
 the True Copy of whofe Letter to hisT)io- 
 cefe thefe IVords> You fay, are entirely 
 wanting. Of this Letter we have Four 
 Copies •, and thofe are in Athanajius^ So- 
 crates, Theodorit, and Gelajius Cy&ieenus. 
 
 1 4 The 
 
i$6 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 The Two firft and the Laft have this Claufe, 
 the Third has it not. But this Great Dis- 
 parity in the Number is not the only Ad- 
 vantage you muft allow us; for Athanaft- 
 us, who was Eufebius's Contemporary) 
 zndGelafiuS) who was hisSucceflTor in the 
 See of Caefarea> muft neceffarily be much 
 more likely to meet with aTrueCopj>.of his 
 Letter than Theodcrit. The nearer a Copy is 
 taken from the Original, the Greater is 
 the Probability of its Exa&nefs. And as 
 it could not pafs through very many hands, 
 before it came to Athanafius y fo Gelafius, 
 who had the Archives of that Church at 
 his Command, could not well mifs of the 
 Original it felf, or at lead an Authenticity 
 Tranfcript from it. And as it is highly 
 Probable in the Nature of the Thing, that 
 Athanafius and Gelafius fhould give us a 
 better Copy of Eufebhiss Letter than 
 Theodorit -, fo we find that the Fa£t cor- 
 relponds exactly with the Probability, in 
 the Difference betwixt their Copies of the 
 Nicene Creed in the body of that Letter. 
 For in the firft place, Theodorit inferts 
 the word % N°. 12, which I find in no o- 
 ther Copy. And this little Monofyllable, 
 as Harmlefs and Inconfiderable as it may 
 perhaps appear to be at firft fight, does 
 not only manifeftly interrupt the Courfe 
 of the Period, but is alfo very Prejudicial 
 to the Sqnfe. 2. He omits the word 
 
Forgery againji Athanafius. 1 3 7 
 
 d\Alv N°. 13, which is unanimouily re- 
 tained in all the ocher Copies 1 have fccn, 
 and without it the whole Claufe is 
 Impertinent, Improper, and Abfurd. 3. 
 In the Anathematifms N°. 5-3. he omits the 
 Particle *, which is not only atte/iedtoby 
 the Majority of Cop-es, and therefore, ac- 
 cording to your Way of Arguing, mod 
 certainly Genuin> but is alfo viiibly re- 
 quifite to fill up the Sentence. Laftly he 
 inferts the word kylb N°. 58, which is re- 
 jected by almoft all the other Copies. 
 Notwithstanding all this, you undertake to 
 prove, that Theodorit's only is the True 
 Copy-, and that by no lefs Arguments, than 
 Etifcbius's own 'fefiimony, and the Impof- 
 fibility of the Contrary. 
 
 EUSE B 1US himfelf you fay, in the 
 body of that very Letter, goes over the fe- 
 ver alT)ifput able Toints which he had fign- 
 ed> and gives the Senfe in which, and the 
 Reafons for which he figned every one of 
 them r effectively -, but not a Syllable of this 
 Condemnation of the Term Created. To a 
 man who was not acquainted with 
 your way of Writing, this Confidence 
 in a Falfe Afiertion, fo Eafily difproved, 
 would be amazing to the Laft Degree. 
 Was it not a ^Difputable Toint % whether 
 our Saviour was SeJs <Lki$nq$ ? Is not that 
 an Article of the Creed which Eufebius 
 Signed? And has he given us any where *# 
 
 that 
 
138 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 thai Letter the Reafons for which he Sign- 
 ed it ? Was it not a "Difputable Toint> 
 whether our Saviour might be called 7?g7r- 
 to$ or ctx\oia>ro$? Are not thefe Words 
 condemned in the Anathemas* And has 
 Eufebius given us any Reafon why he Sign- 
 ed the Condemnation of either of them 
 Refpeffively, or fo much as mentioned 
 either of them ? No : but they are both 
 comprehended in the tqis e%H$ 'Qiteytjudjjoi?, 
 and fo is Jcn^V too, for any thing which 
 appears, or can pofftbly appear, to the 
 contrary. Eufebius therefore does notgive 
 the Senfe in which, and the Reafons for 
 which he Signed every one of the feveral 
 *Di [put able "Points Refpecfively-, and con- 
 fequently it is very Unlucky for you, that 
 in your Great Hall and Eagernefs to Con- 
 viti Athanafius of Forgery, you fhould be 
 fo foon Convifted your felf of falfifying 
 theTeftimony of your own JVitnefs, in the 
 very beginning of the TryaL 
 
 SO much for Eufebius 's own Tefiimony : 
 your other Argument is drawn from his 
 Integrity, and thus exprefled, Nor could 
 he poffibly have Signed the Condemnation 
 of that, on his own Principles - } which 
 were to keep clofe to the Words of Scrip- 
 ture, under every Article -, while all 
 Chriflians y 1 think, did then own, that 
 the Scripture did exprefsly fay our Saviour 
 
 was 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 159 
 
 was Created. But if he was obliged to 
 fign this Creed much againft his willy as 
 you venture to affure us**, If Fear of 
 Deprivation, as you Charitably "Doubt f, 
 was one of h:s At^^J-forSubfcribingthe 
 Whole j why (hould his 'Principles hinder 
 him from Subfcribing fo fmall a Part? Or 
 how can you conclude, that the Difputed 
 Claufe was not in the Anathemas-, becaufc 
 Eufebius could not fign it on his own 
 Principles -, whiliiyou fufpect, that one of 
 the Principles > on which he a&ed in that Af- 
 fair, was the Principle of Fear? Befides, 
 Was not Eufebius an Arian-i in your O- 
 pinion-, and did he not, by your Confef- 
 fion, fign the Creed? And could any A- 
 rian pojfibly do that on his own Princi- 
 ples ? And muft we conclude then 
 that the Claufe is Spurious, becaufe Eu- 
 febius could not fign it on his own Prin- 
 ciples, and believe that at the very fame 
 time he Signed feveral other things, which 
 he could not pojfibly Sign on his own 
 Principles ? 
 
 BUT I am under no necefllty of in- 
 lifting upon the Weaknefs of this Con- 
 fequence. Eufebius, you fay, could not 
 
 * Prim. Chriftian. Vol. iy. p.191. 
 fib. Append, p. \0, 
 
 fan 
 
1 40 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 fign the Condemnation of the Term Created , 
 on his own Principles ; becaufe allChrifti- 
 ans, you think* did Then own, that the 
 Scripture did exprefsly fay our Saviour 
 was Created. Whatever other Chrifiians 
 might own* I believe you will find it a 
 very hard matter to prove that Eufebius 
 owned any fuch thing : and certainly a 
 man of his known Abilities and Integrity 
 would not make other Mens Opinions the 
 'Principles of his Aftions. 1 may take 
 it for granted, I fuppofe, that you mean 
 the Famous Text? Kue/os^W^, Proverb. 
 vi 11. 22. This* 1 confefs, was almoft 
 Univerfally underftood to belong to 
 our Saviour, in what Senfe I am not at 
 prefent concerned to Enquire; fince Eu- 
 febius himfelf tells us ^, that ex/nos is not 
 the True Tranflation of the word M3p 
 in the Original, and that all the Other 
 Interpreters unanimoufly render it by 
 IxTYimTo f , which Tranflation he there il- 
 luftrates and approves of. And I can lee 
 no reafon why he fhould refufe to Sign 
 the Condemnation of the Term Created, 
 upon the Account of its being applied to 
 our Saviour in a Falfe Tranflation of an 
 Allegorical Part of Scripture. 
 
 * De Ecclef. Theolog.l. 1 1 1. c. 2. p. 15-2, 3. 
 
 7 Kal svrccujrc y> x&rtyiK TtjsKctvct. Aj|£a>s, to tifnjWr* Tnlv- 
 
 BUT 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 141 
 
 BUT fuppofc we iliould make ano- 
 ther Conceflion, and allow , that Eu- 
 febius did own, that the Scripture did 
 exprefsly fay our Saviour was Created} 
 then certainly your Argument will hold 
 good, or elie it is the pooreft Sophifm 
 that ever was propofed with fo Great 
 Affurance* : let us fee then whether it will 
 proceed any better after this Second Con- 
 ceflion. Eufebius owned, that the Scripture 
 did exprefsly fay our Saviour was Created \t is 
 Evident therefore that he did not /gw the 
 Condemnation of the Term Created. This, I 
 perfuade my felf,you think to be nothing 
 lefs than "Demonjlration, and that all Man- 
 kind muft neceflarily fubmit to the force 
 of it, excepting fome through-pacd Atha- 
 nafians, who, by a Long Habit of un- 
 derftanding implicitly with other Mens 
 Underftandings, have quite loft the Ufe 
 of their own ; and, by accuftoming 
 themfelves to fee with other Mens Eyes, 
 are become fo Miferably Blind, that they 
 cannot perceive the Truth of your *Dif- 
 coveries. However I find I muft run the 
 Hazard of this Imputation -, for I profefs, 
 wherefoever the fault lies, this Argument; 
 has no Weight at all with me. 
 
 * Bp. Bull Pretends with Great AiTurance&c. frim* Chrifiian. 
 Vol. xv. p. if 5, 
 
 IF 
 
142- An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 IF you mean that Eufebius owned and 
 believed, that, in the Do&rine and Lan- 
 guage of the Infpired Writers, our Blef- 
 fed Saviour was really and properly a 
 Created Being ; then your Argument (lands 
 thus fubdivided into two. 
 
 EUSEBIUS believed our Saviour to be 
 a Created Being j therefore he could not 
 Sign the Condemnation of the Word Crea- 
 ted on his own 'Principles. 
 
 EUSEBIUS could not Sign the Con- 
 demnation of the Word Created on his 
 own Principles 5 therefore he did notjign 
 it. 
 
 NOW though the Firft of thefe 
 two Arguments fhould be good and 
 Conclufive, if the Second be not fo 
 too, the Prefent Difpute will not be af- 
 fe&ed by either of them. And indeed I 
 muft own, that the Confequence of the 
 firft Argument proceeds rightly and truly; 
 but then I do alfo affirm, that the AfTumpti- 
 on, from which that Confequence is 
 drawn, utterly deftroys the Confequence 
 of the Second. For if it was really Eufebi- 
 us s Opinion and Principle*) that our Savi- 
 our was properly fpeaking a Created Be- 
 ing, it neceifarily follows, that he could 
 not Subfcribe the Nicene Creed on his 
 own PrincipleSy nor with a fafe Con- 
 ference ; 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 145 
 
 fciencc; fince the whole Tenour of the 
 Creed, and particularly the following in- 
 difputably Genuine Articles of it, ex, tv? 
 h<nct4 tqS ^oct^o^j Silv <L\v$mv Ik StoS 
 d\^ivo'J y y&i/9Y\QevloL & tfoiviQ&AaLj and ofiovmov rco 
 tare), are utterly Inconfiftent with that 
 Arian Notion, and dire&ly oppofite to 
 it. And fince, if the Minor Propofi- 
 tion of the firfi: Argument be True* 
 Eufebius Signed a Creed, which he could 
 not pojjibly Sign on his own Principles \ that 
 Propofition manifeftlylnvalidates and over- 
 turns the Confequence of the Second Ar- 
 gument, which is, that he did not Sign 
 the 'Difputed Claufe, becaufe he could not 
 do it on his own Principles. The one 
 fuppofes him to have been a Man of Great 
 Integrity : the other Proves he was not. 
 The one fuppofes him to have a&ed al- 
 ways confcientioufly, and on his own 
 Principles: the other proves that he had 
 no Principles, except the Strong Princi- 
 ple of Self-Prefervation. 
 
 BUT this Clailiing and Inconfiftency 
 betwixt the two Arguments is not the on- 
 ly Defe£fc I find in them , for I do farther 
 affirm, that the Aflumption of the firfl-, 
 upon the truth of which they both de- 
 pend, is Groundlefs and Falie. I affure 
 you, I fpeak what I have well confidered, 
 
 and 
 
144 ^ n dnfwer to the Charge of 
 
 and will maintain ; and, in requital for 
 this Challenge from you which 1 am now 
 anfwering, 1 do here challenge you, and 
 the two other Learned and Judicious 
 c Perfons>> yuiir Seconds, to prove, that Eu- 
 febius o'joned and believed that in the 
 Do&rine and Language of Scripture 
 our Blefl'ed Saviour was really and pro- 
 perly of a Created Nature. Eufebiuss 
 Orthodoxy in fome other Points may 
 perhaps require a more Able Advocate: 
 but in this, I think, the Cafe is very 
 Clear* and if you have any thing to 
 offer againft it> which has not been al- 
 ready anfwered, you fliall find me Pre- 
 pared to defend what I have here af- 
 fcrted. 
 
 TO return to your Argument, I have 
 Considered it in one Meaning, and proved 
 it to be Falfe, and Inconfiftent with it 
 felf. But your Words may perhaps be 
 thought to admit of another Meaning 
 (viz,.) that Eufebius owned that the Verb 
 x/n£etir in its Derivatives had been ufed 
 ofourSaviour in Holy Scripture j though 
 he underftood it in no other Senfe, than 
 as barely Implying Produ&ion and Ori- 
 gination. One of thefe two muft ne- 
 ceflarily be your meaning in this place* 
 for if Eufebius did own that the wordx/n- 
 
Forgery againfi Athanafius. 145 
 
 ?w was ufed of our Saviour in Scripture^ 
 "which is here fuppofed and allowed you, 
 he muft underftand it, either of a 1 em- 
 porary * Produ&ion ex nihilo y or a Pro- 
 dudlion without any Limitation. The Ar- 
 gument built upon the former Senfe has been 
 refuted j the Other comes now to be exa- 
 mined. 1 have proved indeed already that 
 Enfebius did not own* that the word was in 
 any Senfe applied to our Saviour in the Prin* 
 cipal Text alledged for that purpofe* it 
 lies upon you therefore to name another, 
 where you think Eufebius owned that the 
 word was fo applied : and fuch a Text I be- 
 lieve you will find it not very eafy to fix up- 
 on •, for as to the famous Paflage Coloff. I. 1 5*. 
 'xp£t)TOTQ'/A$ tcc/lcyis xTioiQS) that is much ra- 
 ther a Proof that our Saviour was not 
 Created than that He was, as might be 
 very clearly made out> if the Courfe of 
 my Argument led me to it. But I am here 
 proceeding with you upon the Suppofiti- 
 on and Imaginary Conceflion that Eufebius 
 did own that the word x.-nfyv was ufed 
 
 * By Temporary Vrodnction I do not mean fuch a Producti- 
 on as was effected in Time, according to the more Strict and 
 Philofophical $enfe of that Word, in which it is retrained to 
 that Duration which began with the Creation, and is meafur- 
 ed by the Periodical Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies: but 
 a P-'" 1 action, which had a Determinate Beginning, preceded 
 b »•• dV r ; Duration ; according to the more General and 
 
 x . Accepration of the Word Tempus or Time. Thi# 
 
 I vc to prevent UoneceiTary Cavils. 
 
 k of 
 
14-6 An 4nfv)er to the Charge of 
 
 of our Saviour in Scripture -, from which 
 Conceflion i fay it will not yet follow, 
 that he did not fign the prefent Llaufe. 
 For either he underftooJ that Word as 
 Arius d;d , or he did not : If you fay he 
 did, you have been anfwered under the 
 former Head 5 if you fay he did not, I muft 
 ask you, why you think he adhered fo religi- 
 oufly to the Words of Scripture, that he could 
 not forbid the Ufe, or rather the Abufe, of a 
 Scriptural Word, when wrefted from its 
 true Meaning, and perverted to a Blafphe- 
 mous Signification. You will tell me, I 
 fuppofe, that it was Eufebius's Principle 
 to keep clofe to the Words of Scripture un- 
 der every Article. But to this 1 reply, that 
 Eufebius* by your own Confeffion, Jigned 
 the Claufe & ^pi^frfc* and thereby jigned 
 the Condemnation of a word which is of- 
 ten applied to our Saviour, even in the New 
 Teftament, and much oftener than the 
 word xti^eiv can be pretended to be. And 
 hence it necefianly follows, either that it 
 was not Eufcbins's 'Principle to keep clofe 
 to the Words, but to the Senfe, of Scrip- 
 ture-, or that be did not keep clofe to his 
 Principles in figning the Creed and its A- 
 nathemas. One of thefe Confequences 
 inuft be True* and, by my Confent, you 
 fhalj freely take yjur own Choice of 
 them, if you chufe the firft, you muft 
 own your AiTumption to be Fallen If the 
 
 fee ondj 
 
Forgery again/} Athanafius. 1 47 
 
 fecond, you mud own your Confcquence to 
 beFalfe, and your Aflumption Impertinent. 
 
 I HAVE now Confidercd your Argu- 
 ment in all its Views? and in all its Parts, 
 and in all the Different Sen fes it will bear-, 
 and have proved it to beGroundiefs, and 
 Falfe, and Inconfiftent with it, fe!f: and 
 after this I think I may be allowed to fay, 
 that till you can give us fome better Rea- 
 fons why Theodorifs Tingle Copy fliould 
 be Prefer'd to the other Three, Eufebius 
 muft be accounted, a Trincipal Witnefs in 
 this Caufe, it is true, butF or At hanajius> 
 not Againft Him. 
 
 II. YOUR next Witnefs is Cyril/ ofje- 
 rufalem. He, you fay, in his ordinary MSS 
 has not the Nicene Creed at all: but in the 
 two beft MSS of that Author, noted Roe, 
 and Cafaubon, he has a Compleat Copy of 
 the fame -, and that as including the Ana- 
 themas alfo - y but fo that They Both entirely 
 omit the Words before us. 
 
 AND here, Sir, though I fliould allow 
 thefe two Extraordinary MSS to be as Good 
 as you pleafe 5 yet it is as Plain as any thing of 
 this Nature can well be, that the Creed was 
 added in them Both by Tranfcribers after- 
 wards j and indeed fo Plain, that you your 
 felf cannot but own it to be very Probable. 
 But I fliould be glad to be informed upon 
 what Grounds you are fo very Pofitive, 
 that thefe are the two beft MSS of that 
 K z Author. 
 
148 An Anfiver to the Charge of 
 
 Author. Have you ever feen the MS or 
 MSS, from which the Venice Edition 
 was taken? Have you ever feen Car- 
 dinal Hofiuss MS , from which Gro- 
 decius made h:s Tranflation? Have you 
 ever feen 'lrevotius's famous Vatican 
 MSS, or any other elfewhere ? Have 
 you fo much as feen either of thefe 
 two MSS which you commend fo highly? 
 Of the Two it is much more likely that 
 you fhould have feen the latter, which is, 
 or was, in the Potfeffion of my Lord of 
 Ely, whom you have had the Honour 
 to ferve in fuch a Relation that His Ex- 
 cellent Library, which was always Open 
 to all Men of Letters, muft neceflarily be 
 Open to you in a Peculiar manner: and 
 yet I believe I may venture to fay, you 
 have not feen even that; at leaft it is not 
 for your Credit to own you have feen it, 
 after you have called that one of the beji 
 MSS of this Author, which in that cafe 
 you muft have known to be no MS, in 
 any other Senfe than that it was in Cafau- 
 bon's Hand-writing, but only a Copy of a 
 Collation taken by that Learned Man from 
 a MS of an Unknown Age, and that too 
 after all perhaps the very fame which Sir 
 Thomas Roe gave to the Bodleian. Library, 
 as the Surprizing Agreement betwixt them 
 affords us room to Jafpeti. 
 
 BUT I perceiye aColle&ion of Various 
 
 Read- 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 1 42 
 
 Readings, and a MS, are Synonymous Terms 
 with you here as well as in feveral other 
 places, where you pretend to oblige 
 us with a mod £xa£t Account of what 
 is, or is not, to be found in all the 
 MSS, as if you had feen and collated all 
 the MSS in the World, whilft all the Au- 
 thority you go upon is what every body 
 knows, the Notes of an Editor, who has 
 perhaps compared the tenth part of the 
 Copies extant of his Author. But what if 
 the Editor fays not a word of the Matter? 
 How will you do then to fright the Atha- 
 najians out of their Senfes with MSS up- 
 on MSS in Large Capitals? Why then, 
 it feems, the Cafe is ftill better for you 5 
 the Field is then all your own, and all the 
 MSS in Europe fliall fay whatever you and 
 the two other Learned and Judicious 'Per- 
 fons your Friends think fit to have them 
 fay. The MSS indeed are all this while 
 at Rome, or Paris, or Florence, or Vienna - 9 
 But what then ? You, who can write an 
 Hiftory of the Fourth Century by Con- 
 jecture, and can tell what was Thought in 
 the Second upon the Strength of your 
 own Imagination, may eafily read a MS at 
 a greater diftance than any of thefe Places. 
 
 BUT 1 leave you to theChaftifementof 
 the Criticks for this Encroachment upon 
 their Province, and Proceed to Obferve far- 
 ther, morefenoufiy than this Allegation de- 
 K 3 fcrv'cs 
 
150 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 ferves, that the Copy of the Nicene Creed 
 in thcfe two MSS, amongft a great many 
 other Variations from your True Copy* 
 gives us in the body of the Creed two 
 very Confiderable Words 5 kyip^as and 
 ktiiasi which we find in no other Copy; and 
 in the Anathemas omits % £cna.s, as well as 
 71 jtWfj fo that whenever, or wherefoever, 
 thefe MSS were written, nothing can be 
 concluded from any Omiffion made by 
 fuch Tranfcribers. 
 
 III. HILART, you fay, in his Book of 
 Synods, has an entire Latin Copy of the 
 Nicene Creed and Anathemas, but without 
 this Clattfe. Yet has this Entire Copy 7 
 OmiflronS) befides as many other Varia- 
 tions from your True Copy. Neither am 
 I afraid to ffiew you another Copy in St. 
 Hilary, without this Clattfe {Fragm. coL^i 5) 
 which has above 20 Variations from that 
 in his Book Of Synods. 
 
 IV. LUCIFER of Cagliari, I confcfs, 
 gives its the Creed and Anathemas, wk fl- 
 out the Claufe in queftiom but then he has 
 omitted no lefs than 8 other Words, 2nd 
 particularly 3 m\*t in the Anathemas^ be- 
 ildes other Variations from what you call 
 the True Copy. He is not therefore, I 
 think, id this Cafe fo Valuable a Wttnefs 
 as you pretend. 
 
 j . THE 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 1 5 1 
 
 V. THE Author of the Expofition of the 
 Creed among the Works of Athanafius, you 
 fay, does alfo entirely omit the fame Llaufe. 
 A Treatife written upon the Nicene Creeds 
 where the words before us were not to be 
 found either in the Copy of the Creed 
 it felf, or in the Comment upon every (ingle 
 Article of it, would be, I copfefs, a very 
 Plaufible Atteflation againft their being Ge- 
 nuin: but This Expofition of the Creed \ 
 though that be the Title indeed which the 
 Tranfcriber thought fit to give it, is rather 
 a Private Creed, made out of the Publick 
 Creeds of Nice and Confiantinople , with 
 feveral Alterations and Additions of the 
 Compiler's own* fo that it cannot be of 
 the leaft Authority in the Prefent Debate. 
 Befides, as Large as this Creed is, tot 
 ytvvYiGivaji One 5*, an Undifputed Claufe of 
 the Anathemas , is omitted as well as % 
 xviqiv. To which I fhall only add, that 
 there is a Manifeft Hiatus here, which 
 fhews that fomething has very Probably 
 been Jert out— * e£ giegas '^jzzdqvu'JtCos % scnas 
 QioKovlxs uvouf t 'ijoy tS 3"€V, ?\ to 7tnv}A& TO 
 ciyiovy TgeVJoy ri QLAAotctfTov, T^rss ayaSe/^a/n- 
 fy/idjj. But of this Lhafm I may perhaps 
 have occafion to fay fomething more here- 
 after. 
 
 VI. BASIL-> it is true, has not theTrefent 
 
 Claufe in either of his Copies : but that thefe 
 
 two Copies are Exaft and Entire 1 cannot 
 
 K 4 fo 
 
i j z An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 fo readily allow to be True; fortheFirftof 
 them differs often from the Second, and 
 from your True Copy much oftener,and par- 
 ticularly in the Body of the Creed Srtlv ex, 
 SeS is omitted, an Article retained in all the 
 other Copies I have feen, except One. 
 This Claufe indeed was omitted by the 
 Council of ' Conjiantinople-, when they rati- 
 fied and improved the Nicene Creed, and 
 that in all Probability becaufe it was mani- 
 feftly Included in Siov clA^hm h SeJ ocA>$vS 
 ^as to n cj iti$ &£y.voi$ ^ to C4> r>j y>], ana 
 rsTtsiv ex. £ voids t5 7rargos feem to be omit- 
 ted in the fame Creed becaufe fully In- 
 cluded in to TiaifTO , and ojuohoiov ) and 
 if we fuppofe that Bafil omitted it upon 
 the fame account, why may we not 
 alfo fuppofe, that the Claufe before us 
 might be omitted by fome, in the fame 
 Study of Brevity, and for the fame Rea- 
 fon, as fully Included in the Expreffions 
 before Condemned, Sv tfoti oh it w, and 
 i% &x. oviztv lymro ? 
 
 I MUST add, that Bafil, in the words 
 immediately following both his Copies, 
 feems to affirm, or rather to take it for 
 granted, that the Word Created was 
 Condemned by the Council of Nice. 
 " This, fays he, is our Faith. But for- 
 afmuch as the Controverfy concerning 
 c the Holy Ghost is not explicitly de- 
 termined in this Creed, the ^viv^io/xoix 01 
 
 <c not 
 
Forgery againjl AthaniGus. 1 5 3 
 
 u not being then rifen, the NiceneFathers 
 " did not Anathematize thoie who fay 
 " that the Holy Ghost is of a Created 
 w and Servile Nature. For there is no- 
 * c thing Created in the Divine and Blcflcd 
 " Trinity *. 
 
 BUT the whole Turn of this Paflage, as it 
 ftands in the Greek, and particularly the 
 Words \q\yatzw to ^pUZoy iva9e/wn(^c\3£>have a 
 much plainer Reference to the Condem- 
 nation of the Word Created when applied 
 to our Saviour, than 1 can poflibly pre- 
 ferve in a Literal Tranflacion, without the 
 Danger of making it more Plain than you 
 may perhaps be willing to allow it is in 
 the Original : but 1 believe 1 may fifely 
 appeal to any Unprejudiced Perfon, whe- 
 ther BaJiFs Words will not juftify the fol- 
 lowing Paraphrafe of them. 
 
 <c THIS is our Faith, and the Faith of the 
 
 c NiceneFzthzrs. But you are not to wonder 
 
 that they did not Anathematize thofe who 
 
 fay that the Holy Ghost is a Creature > 
 
 for the Tneumatomachi not being then. 
 
 rifen, you fee they have not Defined any 
 
 c thing againit their Herefy in the Creed, 
 
 <c but left the Article as they found it in 
 
 TIC, A0T9S, C'JTTZti TDTi T 7rViVf/jWTVf//X^UV cii/.l'pCCViVT&Y, TZ> XPMOif oc- 
 
 vctQipcCTiZfcy^ rove, Xi^v&c, t?$ x.n<P)c, (Jvxi vgy dxXwJtc, tyuazuc, r# 
 irvivfAoi to kyioi, snyKOTtv' ei!JY» *jf> ohuc, t^c, ^hxs k- fJbt/.xx^«n 
 ntolfot, KTi^i*. Baf. Op. Tom. 3. Epift. 60. p. 90. Vicf, etiam 
 Epift. 78. p. 138. 
 
 ■ the 
 
J 54 ^» Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 \ the Apoitolical Creed 5 and thence it is 
 that they have not Condemned thofe 
 c Hereticks in their Anathematifms, which 
 anfwer exaftly to the Creed, and were 
 made againft thofe Hereticks only, 
 whofe Herefy had been Particularly Op- 
 pofed in the Body of the Creed. For 
 this reafon, 1 fay, they did not then 
 proceed to Anathematize thofe who call 
 the Holy Ghost a Creature > and not 
 becr.ufe they thought that Expreflion 
 might be ufed of the Third Perfon in 
 the Trinity, any more than of the 
 Second We are not to believe there- 
 fore, that by Condemning that Word 
 no otherwife than when fpoken of the 
 Son of God, they tacitly allowed it to 
 be ufed of His Blcfled Spirit-, for it was 
 Certainly Their Faith* as it is Ours, 
 that there is Nothing Created in the E- 
 ver-Bleffed Trinity. 
 IF this be not the Senfe of Bajil's Words, 
 it will not be very Eafy to make any Senfe of 
 them at all. For if the whole Paflage does not 
 proceed upon the Suppofition, that the 
 Word jrnco;?, as applied to our Saviour, 
 was Anathematized bv the Council of Nice > 
 where is the Wonder that they did not 
 Anathematize it, when applied to the 
 Holy Ghost? Or why fhould Bafd un- 
 dertake to give any account of their not 
 
 Con- 
 
Forgery again/! Athanafius. 1 5 5 
 
 Condemning it when uled of the Holy 
 Ghost* efpecially in this Place, at the 
 end of the Anathemanfms, and in the 
 manner he does it*, if he knew that they 
 had not fo much as condemned it when 
 applied to our Saviour, but rather, by 0- 
 mitting Hi had direffiy avoided its Con- 
 demnation-, as knowing chat it ought not 
 to be Condemned? Or could he other- 
 wife have given fuch a Reafon for his 
 Aflertion? The Council of Nice did 
 
 not Anathematize the Word Created 
 
 when applied to the Holy Ghost, and 
 c that upon no other account than be- 
 
 caufe the Herefy of the Tneumatomachi 
 f was not then rifen. Well, but how 
 does it appear that this was omitted upon 
 no other account ? Why, becaufe it could 
 not be omitted upon any other account 5 
 
 for it was certainly the Opinion of the 
 tc Council, that No Perfon in the Blefled 
 <c Trinity was Created. But where is 
 the Connexion betwixt this Reafon arid 
 the Propofition it is brought to prove, if 
 the Council be not (uppofed to have Con- 
 demned that Word as applied to the Son? 
 Or how could Bafil pretend to eftablifii his 
 own account of their declining to Ana- 
 thematize thofe who call the Holi Ghost 
 a Creature from theAbfurdity of believing 
 that they did it, becaufe they thought that 
 Word might be ufed of the Holy Ghost, 
 
 if 
 
1 5 6 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 if he knew that the Councildidnot,anddfor/? 
 not, condemn it as applied to our Saviour? 
 
 IT may be Objected perhaps, that St.Ba/il 
 only fays chat there is Nothing Created in 
 the Trinity^ and not that the Council 
 thought" fo : But the Particle yip and the 
 Courfe of the Argument manifeftly prove 
 that it is, and neceffanly mud be, Bajil's 
 Meaning in this Place, that the Council 
 thought fo ' Ihere is Nothing Created 
 <c intheTK in ity, therefore theReafon why 
 c the Council of Nice did not condemn 
 1 thofe who call the Holy Ghost a Crea- 
 ' ture< : was becaufe the Herefy of the Tneu- 
 <f matomachi was not then broached. Where 
 is the Confequence or the Senfe of this? 
 How does it appear, that the Council of 
 Nice waved the Condemnation of the 
 Word Created when ufed of the Holy 
 Ghost upon no other account than the 
 Later Rife of the Macedonian Herefy, be- 
 caufe Bafil and Others believed, or be- 
 caufe it is certainly true, that there is No- 
 thing Created in the Trinity? But be- 
 caule the Council of Nice did really be- 
 lieve , that there is Nothing Created in 
 the Trinity, this indeed is a very Good 
 Argument to prove, what Bafd is Ob- 
 serving, that they waved the Condem- 
 nation of that Word , as applied to 
 the Holy Ghost, for no other Reafon 
 than becaufe at that time there was no 
 
 Parti- 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 157 
 
 Particular Occafion for the Condemnation 
 of it as {q applied. 
 
 UPON the whole matter, I think I have 
 made it appear that this Paflage, imme- 
 diately following the Copy of the Creed, 
 affords us very good Grounds to believe, 
 that in the Opinion of St. Bafil, the 
 Word Created* when affirmed of the Son, 
 was anathematized by the Council of Nice , 
 and confequently that the Claufe was Ori- 
 ginally in his Copies. 
 
 Vli. E'PIPHANlUS^ou Ogives us 
 two Creeds: The former very Like the Nicene 
 Creed, as it was afterward Improved by 
 the Council of Confiantinople , with Ana- 
 themas, like the Nicene, at the End : The 
 latter fomething Like that under the For- 
 mer Head, with the Like Anathemas -, in 
 both which this Claufe is entirely omitted. 
 So that here we have another Eminent 
 Eaflern Witnefs againfl it. 
 
 THE Former is plainly made out of the A- 
 poftles Creed, the Conftantinopolit an Creed, 
 and the Old Eaftern Creed : 77?^ Latter is 
 very nigh thrice as Longas thcNiceneCi'ced-, 
 and 5 except the beginning, no otherwife like 
 either that or the Former, than as they 
 are all three Orthodox Creeds. And the 
 Anathemas annexed to them want ano- 
 ther Llaufe, as well as this in each of the 
 Copies. But your Confequence ought 
 not to pafs unobferved, Epiphanius gives 
 
 us 
 
158 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 us two Creeds, the Former Very Like the 
 Conftantinopolitan Creed, with Anathe- 
 mas. like the Nicene, the Latter Something 
 Like the Former, in both which this Liaise 
 is omitted-, Therefore he is an Eminent 
 JVitnefs, that the Council of Nice did not 
 irifert the Word Created into their Ana- 
 them as. 
 
 THERE is, I confefs, elfewhere inEpi- 
 phanius a Copy of the Nicene Creed and 
 Anathemas without the C/aufe % which 
 your two Learned and Judicious Feilow- 
 Labourers have overlooked, it feems, Te- 
 t alius forgot to put in the Margin, Nicaena 
 fdeiprofejjio) as he did by Miftake in the 
 other place. This Copy is in the fhort 
 Apology written by the Clergy of the 
 Church of Ancyra, to clear themfelves 
 from the imputation of Heterodoxy-, which 
 Epiphanins inferts into his Account of the 
 Herefy of Marcellus, without the leaftSign 
 of his Approbation, but rather the Con- 
 trary. But this is what I do not at all in- 
 fill upon, for 1 think I have very good 
 Reafon to conclude, that the Claufe was 
 Originally in this Copy^ fince Ettgenius 
 in his Apology prefented to Ath^na/ms, in 
 the Name of the fame Church of Ancyra, 
 and written upon the fame Occafion, and 
 about the farae time, clearly aflures us, that 
 
 H. 71. p. 843,4. 
 
 the 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 159 
 
 the Council of Nice did condemn that 
 Blafphemous Expreflion. This Apology 
 Montfaucon found inhisTravels into Italy, 
 after he had finifhed the Edition of Atha- 
 najlus, and he has fince Publifhed it at the 
 Beginning of the Second Volume of his 
 New ColleElion. And as its Authority is 
 Unqueftionable, fo 1 think this Argument 
 which I have drawn from it fairly proves, 
 that the Copy of the Creed preferved in 
 the Church of Ancyra had the T>ifputed 
 Claufe, and confequently that it was alfo 
 originally in the Copy which the Clergy 
 of that Church publifhed in the fliort 
 Defenfe and Expo/it ion of their Faith. 
 
 VIII. YOUR next Witnefs is St.Ambrofe, 
 who, you fay, has Alfo an Entire Copy of 
 thefe Nicene Anathemas, but not a Sylla- 
 ble of the Trefent Claufe ; and is therefore 
 Another Noted IVeflem Evidence againfl 
 it. This Noted IVeflem Evidence then, it 
 feems, has Alfo an Entire Copy of the 
 Nicene Anathemas, as well as the Eminent 
 Eaflern IVitnefs Epiphanius has of the 
 Anathemas like the Nicene. And fo far 
 indeed there fhall be no Difpute betwixt 
 us : St. Ambrofes Copy (hall be allowed to 
 have as Good a Title to be called Entire* 
 as thofe Anathemas like the Nicene in Epi- 
 phanius , till you can find the Claufe n 
 TgraflSf in the Firft of them, and tt^ yiv- 
 wftmxj Goc w in the Latter. 
 
 AM- 
 
i 6o An Anfuoer to the Charge of 
 
 AMBROSE'S Copy runs thus: Eos, in- 
 quit > qui die tint Erat quando non erat, & 
 antequam nafceretur non erat; & qui ex 
 nihilo factum ant ex alia fubftantia *vel 
 uujuz dicunt effe aut Mutabilem aut Conver- 
 tibilem T)ei Filium, anathematizat Catho- 
 lic a &Apofiolica Ecclejia.* After this he pro- 
 ceeds to fhew, by an Induction of Parti- 
 culars, that all thefe Exprcflions are not 
 only Condemned by the Council of Nice> 
 but alfo Contrary to Scripture and Reafon. 
 Arrius Ergo 'Dicit : Erat quando non erat : 
 Sed Scripttira c Dicit, Erat : non dicit, Non 
 
 erat, Veniamus ad alia, Arrius dicit : 
 
 Antequam nafceretur non erat, Sed Scrip- 
 
 turd dicit omnia ejje per Filium. Arrius 
 
 die it Ex nihilo Dei Filium, Quomodo ergo 
 Ijei Films? ~ Arrius dicit, Ex alia fub- 
 ftantia. Quae igitur alia fubftantia aequa- 
 tur T)ei bilw, ut ex ipfa 'Dei Ulius fit ? 
 
 Arrius dicit Creaturam Dei Fill- 
 
 urn, nonjicut caeteras Creaturas* Quae enim 
 Creatura non ficut alia &c. Arrius dicit 
 Mutabilem &• Convertibilem Dei Filium. 
 ^Quomodo ergo c Deus fit Mutabtlis^&c. This, 
 in fhort, is the Courfe of St. Ambrofe's 
 Argument in this Place. What I would 
 infer from it is fo very Obvious, that I 
 think 1 might fafely leave the whole mat- 
 ter in the hands of any Unprejudiced 
 Reader, to draw the Conclufion for him- 
 
 * L. i. Be Fide ad Gratian. fttb finem* 
 
 felf. 
 
Forgery agamfl Athanahus. i C I 
 
 felf. And indeed the Cafe is fo very clear, 
 as not only to need no Illuftration , but 
 alfo fcarce to admit of any. Yer fince 
 the Nature of the Difpute I am engaged 
 in feems to require ir of me, I will endea- 
 vour to colled the thoughts which occur- 
 red to me upon reading over this Chapter, 
 and put them into the form of an Argu- 
 ment 5 though i rauft profefs, that I can- 
 not pretend to give any man half that 
 Satisfadtion and Conviction, which I be- 
 lieve will naturally arife in his own mind 
 as he reads it himfelf in St. Ambrofe. 
 
 IT is as Plain, as any thing of this na- 
 ture can well be, from the whole Courfe 
 of the Chapter, and particularly from 
 the words Veniamus ad a!ia> that it was 
 St.AwbroJe's Defign in this Place to Com- 
 ment upon the Anathematized Expreflion^ 
 and thofe only, and that too in the Exact 
 Order in which they flood in his Copy* 
 and to defend the Nicene Anathemattfms^ 
 after the fame manner as he had already 
 defended the Doctrine eftablilhed in the 
 Creed, by Arguments drawn from Right 
 Reafon, and Divine Revelation/ '.And 
 fince in this Comment, which he makes 
 upon every one of the Condemned Ex- 
 preflions in it's Order, he does^not pafs 
 over the TDifputed Claufe, when fhe comes 
 to the place where it ought to fland } fince 
 
t6z An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 he does not proceed to animadvert upon 
 Mutabilem & Convert ibilem> after he had 
 finifhed his Obfervations upon Ex alia 
 fubftantia, but inferts the Clauje before us, 
 with his Comment upon it, betwixt thofe 
 two Claufes; there cannot be a Clearer 
 Cafe in things of this Nature, than that 
 the Claufe> which (lands in its Proper 
 Place in St. Ambrofe's Comment, ftood 
 alfo in the fame Place in the Copy of the 
 Anathematifms^ upon which he was Com- 
 menting, as it came Originally from hi* 
 own hand. 
 
 OTHERWISE the Courfe of his 
 Argument is Unneceflarily interrupted, 
 and whilft his Defign plainly appears to 
 be no other than to run over and briefly 
 animadvert upon all the Condemned Ex- 
 prefllons in order as they ftood in his 
 Copy, which Order he exa&ly keeps to, 
 we mult yet very Unreafonably fuppofe 
 that he needlefly broke through his own 
 Method, to infert an Expreffion, with his 
 Comment upon it, amongft thofe which 
 the Council Condemned, as if it had alfo 
 been fo Condemned, when he knew that 
 the Council did not, nor durft* Condemn 
 it. And this I fay we muft fuppofe to 
 have been done Needlefly, for there could 
 be no Occafion for his treating of this Ex- 
 preffion at all in this Chapter, unlefs as 
 Condemned by the Council, among the 
 
 others 
 
Forgery againfl Athanafius. i € j 
 
 others fo Condemned ; fince he had 
 difcourfed of it very Largely in two fore- 
 going Chapters, and there fully difcufled 
 this Point. 
 
 A N D if there had been any Occafion 
 for him to Examine this Expreffion 
 in this Chapter, and he had defigncd 
 to do fo when he began to write it* if 
 this only, of all the other Arian Expref- 
 fions which efcaped the Anathematifms * 
 and are mentioned by him elfewhere, was 
 to be Confidered here* How came he to 
 chufe this Remarkable Place for it above 
 all others ? Was he in fuch Great Haft to 
 give this flight Stri&ure upon it, that he 
 could not (lay till he had finifhed his De- 
 fign when he was jvift at the End of ic, 
 when there was nothing left to Comment 
 upon but Mutabilem & Convertibilern, and 
 then fay what he pleafed upon it, without 
 any Confufion or Breach of Method? Or 
 if this Expreflion was to be inferred and 
 refle&ed upon fomewhere or other among 
 the Anathematized Expreflions, why did 
 he not take the firft Opportunity of doing 
 it, that the reft of his Comment might 
 proceed orderly ? After Etat quando non 
 erat'i which is a Neceftary Part of the 
 Notion of a Created Being, or after Ex 
 nihilo faffum, which includes the other, 
 and is a fort of a Definition of Creatim, 
 it might have been much more properly 
 L 2 infertod, 
 
i<?4 dn Avfaer to the Charge of 
 
 inferted, than after Ex alia fubjlantia. 
 And when he had defer'd it fo long, and 
 pafled over the mod Proper Places for 
 inferring it, he might furely, formethod's 
 fake, have defer'd it fo little a while lon- 
 ger, as jufl: to fay a word or two upon 
 Miitabilem & Convert ibilem^ and then he 
 might have commented upon it^ to the 
 End of the Chapter, without any Impro- 
 priety or Confufion. 
 
 UPON thcfe Confiderations I think 
 we have all the Evidence which can Pofli- 
 bly be expedted in the Nature of the 
 thing, that the Ttifputed Clattfe was really 
 Extant in that Entire Copy of the Ana- 
 themas^ which St. Ambroje tranfcribed in- 
 to this Book of his ; and Confequently 
 that the Omiilion of it in the MSS, from 
 which our Prefent Editions of Ambrofe 
 have been taken, cannot be accounted a 
 Weft em Attejtaiion againft it* nor yet be 
 Reafonably charged upon any- Negligence 
 in St. Ambrofe himfelf, but muft be either 
 an Arian Corruption, or the fault of fome 
 Carelefs Tranfcriber. 
 
 THfS Teftimony of St. Ambrofe I have 
 had the honour to propofe, either by Let- 
 ters or in Converfation, to feveral Per- 
 fons of known Judgement and Sagacity, 
 and they have allowed it to be Convin- 
 cing and Satisfactory, which is an Argu- 
 ment wuh me that Nothing Solid or Ma- 
 terial 
 
Forgery againji Athanafius. i G$ 
 
 terial can be brought to Invalidate it. Yet 
 fince it is fo Particularly Remarkable in fa- 
 vour of the Claufe> and affords us alfo 
 fomething like an Experimentum Cruris to 
 diredt us to the True Caufe of this Omif- 
 fion in other places, 1 fhall fairly State and 
 Confider all the Objections, which I think 
 can poffibly be raifed againft it. 
 
 (i.) THE Firft and Principal Objection 
 which occurred to me, as 1 read over the 
 Whole Chapter purely to fee what could 
 be Objected, is this. St. Ambrofe concludes 
 his Comment upon the Words Ex alia 
 fubftantia thus, Quod fi ex alia fubftantia, 
 Filium dicent) ipji fe revincunt, & ver- 
 bum fubftantiae quod metuunt confitendo^ 
 & Filium Creaturisy quibus praeferre fe 
 fimulanty confer endo. And then he goes 
 on, Arrius dicit Creaturam T>ei Filium* 
 non ficut caeteras Creaturas. Quae enim 
 Creatura non ficut alia Creatura non eft? 
 Homo non ut Angelas-, terra non ut coe- 
 lum, fol non ut aqua* lumen non ttt tene- 
 brae. Nihil ergo praeferendo donavit* 
 fed ad fimplices deapjendos mifero colore 
 fraudem fuae lmpietatis obduxit. This 
 
 fuggefts a very Probable Account of all 
 
 " the oddCircumftan.es in thelnfertion of 
 
 <c thisClaufe among the Nicene Anathema- 
 
 f tifms, without flying to theUnrealbnable 
 
 * Suppofition of any Defeat in the MSSj 
 
 1 a Suppofition never to be made but in 
 
 ■ L 3 k Cafes 
 
i c 6 An Anjnver to the Charge of 
 
 tc Cafes of abfoluteNeceflity. St. Ambvofe in 
 c< his Comment upon the Words Ex alia 
 £ fubftantia urges it upon the Avians, that 
 u though they pretend to exempt the Son 
 of God from the Rank of other Crea- 
 u tures, yet by this Expreflion of theirs 
 " they bring Him down to a Level with 
 1 them. This very Naturally puts him in 
 mind of the Noted Arian Saying Cvea- 
 tura eft, fed nonfictit caeterae Cveatuvae. 
 4 Accordingly he fets it down, and ani- 
 madverts upon it, not as a Part of the 
 Anathematifms, but, m dv mipoi^ as a Fa- 
 <c mous Expreflion very much uled by the 
 ft Avians, which chanced to occur to 
 c him, as he was examining the other A- 
 x vian Expreflions, which had been Con- 
 1 demned by the Council of Nice. And 
 1 that this is the true Account of the mat- 
 u ter, and not that which has been given 
 1 before, feems very plain from St Am- 
 " bvofe's Comment upon Avvius dicit Cvea- 
 x tuvam <Dei Filium, non Jicut caetevas 
 f< Cveatuvas, which is perfeftly of a piece 
 " with the Sentence which introduced it 
 
 * and gave Occafion for it, and proceeds 
 <c upon the fame Defign to fliew that the 
 cf Avians, whatever they may pretend, do 
 " not in reality allow our Saviour any Supe- 
 " riority of Nature above the other Crea- 
 " turesi and this he does without faying 
 
 * one Syllable of their Calling our Savi- 
 
 <f our 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. i C7 
 
 tv our a Creature or a Created Being in 
 General* whereas if he had defigned a 
 Comment upon the Claufc $ xnwi he 
 would certainly have infifted upon the 
 
 * Blafphemy of applying that Word to 
 
 * the Son of God. This Objection I have 
 propofed in all itsRealForce,and at the fame 
 time with the Strongeft Colours which 1 
 think can poffibly be laid upon it by an 
 Adverfary, who would make the bed of 
 his Caufe with any Regard to Truth : And 
 in Anfwer to it 1 obferve, 
 
 i. THAT though this fliould be allowed 
 to be a Probable Account of the matter, 
 yet if the other be more Probable, we 
 mult ftick to that-, for in fuch Cafes, 
 where the Nature of the thing admits of 
 nothing like Demonftration, the Greater 
 Probability determines the Aflent as natu- 
 rally and as Reafonably, though not to 
 the fame degree, as Stronger Proofs can 
 do where they may be juftly expe&ed. 
 And whether the other be not in many 
 refpe&s much more Probable, I believe! 
 might fafely ftand to the Decifion of any 
 Unprejudiced Perfon, who will compare 
 them. 
 
 2. THE other is much more Obvious 
 and Natural, for which I appeal to any 
 Equal Judge, whether it did not firfl: oc- 
 cur to him upon reading this Chapter in 
 L 4 :. Sr 
 
1 6 8 An Jnfwer to the Charge of 
 
 St. Ambrofe. And if this be True, which 
 I think cannot be denied, it muft be al- 
 lowed to be a very Strong Prefumption in 
 favour of the Account I have given, and 
 againft that which I am now examining. 
 5. THE foundation of the whoie Ar- 
 gument is, that we are not tohaverecourfe 
 to the Suppofal of anyOmiflion or Fault 
 in the MSS but in Cafes of abfolute Ne- 
 ceflity* and this Notion, if it be under- 
 ftoodfo as to reach the prefent Queftion, I 
 affirm to beFalfe and Injudicious. It may 
 be true indeed that this Suppofition is not 
 to be made but in Cafes of Neceflity, if 
 it be allowed that there is a Neceflity far 
 it when the Courfe of an Author's Argu- 
 ment proceeds rightly upon fuch a Sup- 
 pofition, and is broken and confounded 
 Without it-, when it clears up every thing 
 much better than any other Suppofition 
 which can be made: but if the word Ne- 
 ceflity muft be understood in its ftrifteft 
 Senfe, I much queftion whether it bepof- 
 fible that fuch a Cafe fliould ever happen. 
 The whole Pafiage is Nonfenfe, Confu- 
 fion, and Contradiction: Let us but fup- 
 pofe that one Word is omitted, and all 
 will be Rational, Clear, and Confident. 
 No. This muft not be. Here is no Cafe 
 of Neceflity. It is not Neceflary that 
 this Author fhould be fuppofed never to 
 have Contradicted himfelf, nor ever to 
 
 have 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 169 
 
 have written Abfurdly and Confufedly. 
 And thus in any other Cafe which can 
 be put, it will be very eafy to find an E^ 
 vafion to prove it no Cafe of Abfolute 
 Neceflityj and fo we muft fit down Con- 
 tented with what can be done towards 
 Clearing the Difficulties in Antient Books 
 by thofe Learned Gentlemen of Obfcure 
 ^iligence^ who cannot believe that the Bed 
 and moft Judicious Authors wrote Com- 
 mon Senfe, if it be contra fidem Codicum. 
 But the moft Able Criticks are always the 
 fartheft from paying any fuch Superfluous 
 Veneration to the Librarians^ and I do not 
 find that they ever fcruple to fuppofe 
 that their MSS are Defective or in any 
 other refpedb Faulty, if they have Good 
 Probable Grounds and Proper Critical Ar- 
 guments for it, though it be not a Cafe of 
 ftrift Neceflity. And as this is a Suppofi- 
 tion, which no Man can think Unreafon- 
 able, who knows any thing of MSS* fo 
 in the Prefent Cafe Particularly I will ven- 
 ture to fay it cannot pofllbly be thought 
 fo, in a Difpute which has its Rife from 
 the Faultinefs of Copies, and cannot be 
 decided either way without fixing that Im- 
 putation upon fome of them. 
 
 4. TO fay that this Claufe was Occafi- 
 onally Introduced by meer chance, upon the 
 
 Acci- 
 
170 d* Anpwer to the Charge of 
 
 Accidental Mention of fomething relating 
 to it, is neither fo Probable an Account as 
 that which 1 have given, nor yet in it felf 
 at all Probable. It is agreed, that either 
 St. Ambrofe or his Tranfcribers have not 
 been fo Careful and fc xa£t as might have 
 been wiftied. The queftion is whether this 
 Negled fliall be charged upon the Author, 
 or the Librarians. And, it feems, to avoid 
 the Abfurdity and Injuftice of charging it 
 upon the Tranfcribers, whofe Great Ac- 
 curacy and Diligence is fo very Notori- 
 ous to the whole World, and fo very Con- 
 fpicuous in all the MSS extant -, rather 
 than believe, that thefe People could Sleep 
 over their Dull Work, who were feldom 
 perfectly Awake, we muft be forced to 
 believe it of fo Judicious and Excellent a 
 Writer as St. Ambrofe * which, befides its 
 Unreafonablenefs in the General Notion, 
 is in this particular attended with feveral 
 Improbable Circumftances. In a Long 
 Work, we know, a Man may very natural- 
 Jy forget himfelf, and his Main Defign : 
 but that St. Ambrofe Ihould fo ftrangely 
 forget what he was about, in fo lhort a 
 Comment, upon fo flight an Occafion as 
 bccaufe the Word Creatura chanced to 
 come in his way ; that notwithftanding he 
 had largely treated of it juft before, and 
 therefore was more likely to be tired with 
 ic, than very Eager upon it as New Sub- 
 ject, 
 
forgery againjl Athanafius. 171 
 
 je&, yet this Cafual Mention of it fhould 
 give him fo Violent an Inclination to ani- 
 madvert upon it, that he muft do it immedi- 
 ately) and could not ftay till hehadfinifhed 
 his Comment* when he was within three 
 fhort Lines of the Conclufion of it, where 
 he might have treated of it as Largely as 
 he pleafed without any Confufion or Irre- 
 gularity v and that this Violent Inclination, 
 which forced him to break the Thread of 
 his Difcourfe when he was juft at the end 
 of it, fliould yet fpend it felf fo very foon, 
 in half a dozen lines, and then leave him 
 to the Quiet Profecution of his former 
 Method y .This, I think, is very Strange, 
 and Unaccountable. 
 
 f . IF the Courfe of his Comment upon 
 Ex aliafubftantia Occafionally led him to 
 confider this Arian Expreffion, though he 
 knew it had not been Condemned by the 
 Council of Nice, it is Infinitely more Pro- 
 bable, that he would have done it only as 
 a Continuation of his Comment upon that 
 Article, and not have began another Head 
 of Difcourfe, in the fame Form with which 
 he Introduces every one of the Anathe- 
 matized Expreffions, and thofe only, Ar- 
 rius dicit Creaturam Dei Filium &c. which 
 words, Arrius dicit, plainly refer to his 
 Copy of the Anathematifms, as if this had 
 been there fee down among the reft, as 
 
 an 
 
i jz An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 an Exprelfion of Ariuss condemned by the 
 Council. 
 
 6. IT is fo far from being Probable, 
 that the Reference St. Ambrofe makes in 
 the preceding Sentence to this Arian Ex- 
 preflion, gave him occafion to inferc it, 
 and Comment upon it, that the Contrary 
 is much more Probable (viz.} that the Re- 
 ference in the Clofe of that Sentence was 
 rather occafioned by the Article he was 
 next to Conlider. Quod Ji ex alia fub- 
 ftantia Filium dicent) ipfi fe revincunt, & 
 verbum fubftantiae quod metuunt confiten- 
 do^ & Filium Creaturis, quibus praeferre 
 fe Jimulant, conferendo. tc If they will (till 
 affirm that the Son is of another Suh- 
 ftance (that is, not of one or the fame 
 ct fubftance with the Father} they Contra- 
 dict and Confute themfelves, by making 
 ufe of a word which they Condemn as 
 Improper and Unfcriptural, the Word 
 ." Subflantia. Here is a very Plain Con- 
 tradiction proved upon them 5 nothing 
 more therefore was neceffary to be added 
 to gain that Point. Yet he goes on to 
 iliew that this Expreffion of theirs leads 
 rhem into another Inconfiftency, iince by 
 applying it to the Son of God they 
 brought Him down to an Equality of Na- 
 ture with the other Creatures, at the fame 
 time as they pretended to Trefer F{im be- 
 fore t hern. This Contradiction howjuft- 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius* 1 7 5 
 
 ly foever it may be charged upon them, 
 is not nigh fo Direft and Apparent as the 
 other -, and therefore could not be added 
 to make the Cafe Clearer, but was rather, 
 in all Probability? fuggefted by the next 
 Article, and ufed chiefly as a Tranfition. 
 Otherwife he might as well have added it 
 in the middle of this Comment, where he 
 urges the Contradiction mentioned in the 
 former part of this Sentence, their Ufing 
 a Word themfelves which they pretended 
 ought not to be ufed at all. There I fay 
 he might have preflTed this other Contra- 
 diction too, as well as in the place before 
 us : but there, it feems, it did not occur, 
 where yet it was as likely to have occurred 
 upon any other account but that there in 
 the Middle of the Comment the Article 
 he was next to examine was farther from 
 his thoughts than here at the very End 
 of it: And as this was upon any other ac- 
 count as Likely a Place for him to have 
 mentioned this Arian Expreffion, as that 
 before us, fo there are feveral Places much 
 more Likely upon all other accounts; 
 fince every one of the preceding Claufes 
 Erat quando non erat, Antequam nafcere- 
 tur non erat> and Ex nihilo factum, gave 
 him a much more proper Occafion to 
 confider it, than he could find here un- 
 der this Article Ex alia fubftantia. And 
 from all this I think it may be Probably 
 
 and 
 
174 dto Anpwer to the Charge of 
 
 and Fairly Concluded, that this Reference 
 was rather fuggefted and occafioned by the 
 following Claufe, than vice verfa. 
 
 7. THE Obje&ion drawn from the Na- 
 ture of St. Ambrofes Comment upon Ar~ 
 rius dicit Creaturam &c. as Plaufible as it 
 may perhaps appear at firft fight; upon a lit- 
 tle examination will be found, I believe, 
 to fie of no great force. For if this Com- 
 ment was intended by St. Ambrofe to be 
 perfedtly of a piece with the Sentence 
 which is fuppofed to have occafioned it, 
 and to proceed upon the fame Defign, 
 without any regard to the word Created as 
 Condemned by the Council of Nice -, he 
 would certainly have kept on his Comment 
 upon Ex alia fubftantia> and then indeed 
 it would have been all of a piece? butnow, 
 upon this Suppofition, it is Unneceflarily 
 and very Improperly Divided. WhatOc- 
 cafion could there be for him to break off 
 his Animadverfions upon Ex alia fubftan- 
 tia y and begin a new Se&ion, and that too 
 with the fame Introduftion which he fets 
 before every one of the Anathematized 
 Expreffions ♦, if he was fo far from defigning 
 a Comment upon any Condemned Expref- 
 f Ion, that he did not fo much as defign to 
 (hew the Falfehood or Impiety of any 
 /Irian Expreffion, though uncondemned, 
 but only to proceed upon the foregoing 
 Sentence, and to continue it by adding 
 
 another 
 
Forgery againfi Athanafius. 175 
 
 another Argument to prove upon the 
 Arians the Contradiction and lnconfiftency 
 he had there obje&ed to them ? 
 
 BUT it is needlefs to infift any farther 
 upon General Proofs, fince St. Ambrofe 
 himfelf, in this very Chapter, has in- 
 formed us by a Particular Inftance, in a 
 Parallel Cafe, what he would Probably 
 have done if his Defign had been as it is 
 here reprefented. The Place is very Re- 
 markable, and therefore I fhall fet it down 
 at large. Artius dicit : Antequam nafcere- 
 tur* non erat\ fed Scriptura dicit omnia effe 
 per Filium. Quomodo ergo aliis dedit effe 
 qui non erat? Cum autem dicit Impius} 
 Quando & Ante, haec utique duo 'verba 
 tempus ojiendunt. guomodo ergo negant 
 Tempus ante Filium* & volunt prius fuiffe 
 quae temporis funt: cum id ipfum* Quando 
 & Ante, & Aliquando non fuiffe* fit tem- 
 poris. Here we fee St. Ambrofe is upon 
 the very fame Defign as he is pretended 
 to be in the Place we are difputing about* 
 he is anfwering the Famous Arian Evafion 
 Non erat Tempus ante Filium* and proving 
 that it makes them Inconfiftent with them- 
 felves, as he does in the other place with 
 refpeft to Non ft cut caeteraeCreaturae* but 
 yet he keeps on his Comment upon Ante- 
 quam nafceretur non erat. He does not 
 begin again with Arrius dicit Erat quando 
 von erat (or> Antequam nafceretur non 
 
 erat) 
 
tf$ An j4tipu.tr to the Charge of 
 
 erat') fed non erat tempus quando non erat : 
 but he difpatches this Sophifm under the 
 Article where it occurred, and then goes 
 on to the next Anathematized Expreflion. 
 
 HERE alfo we may obferve,asa farther 
 Anfwer to this Objection, that the Great- 
 eft part of the Comment upon Antequam 
 nafceretur non erat is taken up with that 
 Avian Palliation, as the Comment upon 
 Arrius die it Creaturam Tiei Filium feems 
 indeed to be wholly taken up with the 
 like Palliation, contained in the words 
 Non ficut eaeteras creaturas. And it is 
 not at all Strange, that he who had fpent 
 the Greateft part of his Comment upon 
 an Arian Evafion before, fliould in this 
 Place take up his whole Comment with 
 an Evafion of the fame nature -, fince the 
 Impiety of the Expreflion would fuffici- 
 ently appear from the Weaknefs of the 
 Evaiion made ufe of to palliate it. For 
 if the Avians thought this Palliation Ne- 
 ceflary, as it is plain they did by their 
 adding of it, when he had fliewn that it 
 did not mend the matter at all, there was 
 no Need for him to difpute farther againft 
 that Expreflion in this fhort Comment, 
 nor to repeat what he had faid of it in 
 three foregoing Chapters; after he had 
 proved that to Call our Saviour a Crea- 
 ted Being, notwithstanding the foften- 
 ing Addition they made to it, did really 
 
 bring 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 177 
 
 bring Him down to a Level with the other 
 Creatures. This is fo Manifeftly Impious 
 and Blafphemous, that he might very rea- 
 fonably conclude, that if he had proved 
 it upon them, as he cerrainly thought 
 he had at lead, there could be nothing 
 more wanting to convince the Emperor, or 
 any other Chriftian, how defcrvedly this 
 Claufe had been condemned by the Coun- 
 cil of Nice, nor yet to give him the ut- 
 moft Abhorrence of an Expreflion, which, 
 however foftened and palliated, did not 
 in Reality allow the Son of God, by 
 whom all things were made , any Preemi- 
 nence or Superiority of Nature above the 
 reft of the Creation. 
 
 (2.) IT may perhaps be Objefted by you 
 or your Learned Friends, but I mould be 
 very much furprized to hear of it from 
 any Perfon lefs Prejudiced in this Difpute, 
 that St.Amhrofe does not fay Creatum but 
 Creaturam^ which is the Literal Verfion 
 of x/ncy**, not of jcnssV But this is fo Poor 
 an Evafion, and in effeft fo Plain a Con- 
 feflion that nothing Material can be Ob- 
 jected, that it can only be the Laft Refuge 
 of an Advcrfary, who is either Convinced 
 but afhamed to own it, or fully refolved 
 never to be Convinced-, for which reafon 
 1 fhould be a little furprized to hear of it 
 even from you, and the rather becaufe 
 you cannot cafily make this Trifling Ex- 
 M ccption 
 
178 An Anfnver to the Charge of 
 
 ception without acknowledging at the 
 fame time, that St. Ambroje has at leaft 
 two Syllables of the Trefent Claufe. The 
 only Queftion therefore which you can 
 move here, is whether the Addition of 
 two Letters in the Word Credturam 
 more than we find in Creatum, be of 
 weight enough to give us reafon to be- 
 lieve, that, notwithstanding all I have faid 
 to the Contrary, St. Ambrofe knew no- 
 thing of the Claufe % ww* And this be- 
 ing the State of the Queftion, if it really 
 can be made a Queftion, 1 muft declare 
 for the Negative j and that, i.Becaufe this 
 Objeftion, purely to avoid the Great Ab- 
 furdity of fuppofing that St. Ambrofe did 
 not tranflate the word xmw very Accurately 
 obliges us to fuppofe him much more In- 
 accurate and Negligent in a point of much 
 Greater Importance, the Method and Order 
 of his Difcourfe. 2. The ftri&eft Laws of 
 Tranflation confine a Man only to Words, 
 not to Syllables : And I believe there is fcarce 
 any Verfion extant, except of the Scriptures, 
 where infinitely greater Liberties are not 
 allowed and taken in every line, than this 
 of rendering a Verbal Adjeftive by a Ver- 
 bal Subftantive of the fame Signification. 
 3. St. Ambrofe was not fo very Exa£V in 
 his Tranflation of the Anathematifms, as 
 he muft neceflarily be fuppofed to have 
 been all along, if this Argument be of any 
 
 Force > 
 
Forgcty again]} Athanafms. 175* 
 
 Force i and this is plain from the whole 
 Copy of the Anathemas-* and particularly 
 from his rendering e£ QOt qvtw, ex nihilo* 
 where a more Scrupulous Tranflator would 
 probably have laid, either ex nullis extan- 
 tilms with Lucifer and one of Hilarys 
 Copies, ox de rion extantibus with the other 
 of Hilary s Copies and that in the 
 Acls of the Council of Ephefus, or ex 
 nullis fubftantibus with Rufinus^ or ex nul- 
 lis exijlentibus with the Copy in the Latin 
 Acls of the Council of Carthage, or 
 ex non exijlentibus with the Copy in the 
 AcTs of the Council of Chalcedon. Ex 
 nihilo indeed gives us the Senfe of g£ 
 oht ovTuv, and fo does Creaturam give us 
 the Senfe of >cn<^, and I believe we 
 (hall not find that g£ chc ovmv is much 
 oftener rendered by ex nihilo than xt.$m 
 by Creaturam. 4. St. Ambrofe every 
 where, as I remember, and 1 am fare very 
 often, ufes the Words Creatura and Crea- 
 tum proroifcuoufly* and when he has Oc- 
 cafion to mention the Blafphemy of the 
 Arians in calling our Saviour a Created 
 Being, he ufes Creatura oftener than the 
 other; which alfo overturns the Founda- 
 tion upon which this Objection is builc> 
 if it has any Foundation at all. And be- 
 lides, in this Paflagc there was fomething 
 Particular to determine him to the Choice 
 of Creaturam, rather than its Synonymous 
 M * Word 
 
i So An Anfiuer to the Charge of 
 
 Word Creatitm-, and that was the Inten- 
 tion he had to fubjoyn, Nonjicut caeteras 
 Creaturasi which made Creaturam the 
 more Proper Word of the two in this 
 place. Laftly, to ufe no more Arguments 
 in fo clear a Cafe, we find that the Coun- 
 cil of Nice it felf did not fee any Occa- 
 fion to be fo precifely Exaft even in the 
 Original Language ♦, for they tell us in 
 their Synodical Epiftle, that they had ana- 
 thematized thofe who fay our Saviour is 
 xTia^cL Creatura, whereas in their Anathe- 
 matifms the Word Condemned is not 
 xizafjid but jch^V Creatum. This Inftance 
 you may perhaps except againft , but I 
 hope you will allow your own Authority 
 to be very Good, and that you have 
 Clearly Ttemonftrated, that Athanafius does 
 federal times direftly affirm that the Council 
 of Nice did even in their folernn Anathemas 
 Condemn the Arians for faying that our Sa- 
 viour was Created >> though of the four 
 Tlain Taffages quoted to prove it, the 
 word K<tt$v is only in one, and in the other 
 Three xm-^x. 
 
 (3.) ANOTHER Objeftion, which 
 may poflibly be made, is this. c St. 
 A?nbrofe adds here, Non ficut caeteras 
 Creaturasi a Claufe not extant in any 
 Copy of the Anathemas. Thefe Words 
 were added either as a Part of the Ana- 
 * thematifnis, or not as a Part of them. 
 
 ■ If 
 
Forgery again]} Athanafius. i 8 1 
 
 If they were added as a Part of the 
 Anathematifms in his Opinion, his Testi- 
 mony cannot be of the Leait Ufe in 
 this Difpute: If they were not added as 
 a Part of the Anathematifms, they are 
 very Improperly and Immethodically m- 
 ferted in this place, where he propofed 
 to confider no other Expreilions, but 
 thofe which had been condemned by 
 the Council of Nice. But what 
 Reafon can poffibly be given, why 
 St. Ambrofe, after he had fet down the 
 Expreffion condemned by the Council, 
 might not add the Softening Explication 
 which the Arians put upon it; in order 
 to leave them not the lead Colour for any 
 Pretenfe, that he had not represented them 
 fairly? WhatConfufion or Impropriety is 
 there in this Addition, which was not 
 made till his Method had been fully fecured, 
 by fetting down the Condemned Expref* 
 fion in its proper Place, and introducing 
 it with the fame Words with which he 
 had begun his Comment upon every one 
 of the other Condemned Expressions ? Non 
 erat Tempus ante Filium was another Com- 
 mon Expreffion among the Ariayis , of 
 the fame Qualifying Nature with that 
 which we are now confidenng, Non (icv.t 
 caeteraeCreaturae, and ufed with the lame 
 defign to foften their Bold and Shocking 
 Expreilions with refpeft to the Beginning 
 M 3 of 
 
\ 8 1 An Anpwer to the Charge of 
 
 of Exiftence which they afcribed to our Sa- 
 viour, as this was to palliate the Grofsnefs 
 of calling Him a Creature. This Evaiion 
 of theirs St. Arnbrofe examins in the Com- 
 ment upon Antequam nafceretur non erat>> 
 and takes up above two thirds of that Com- 
 ment with it. Now if he had begun that 
 Article thus, Arrins dicit Antequam nafce- 
 retur non erat<> Jed non erat ternpus ante 
 Filiurn ; Would there have been any thing 
 Improper orlmmethodical in this? Would 
 the Infertion of this Expreffion imme- 
 diately after the Anathematized Claufe 
 have quite broke the Method of his Dif- 
 courfc 5 which now (lands within a few 
 lines of it without any Breach of Method? 
 Or could any man have gathered from it, 
 or even fufpecTed, that he had no regard 
 to <7tt& ywv$Moui sx, w> nor any defign to 
 Comment upon it as an Expreffion con- 
 demned by the Council of Nice ? 
 
 BESIDES if the Addition of the Words non 
 faut caeteras Creaturas, be allowed to prove 
 that St. Ambrofe^vthzn he wrote this Para- 
 graph, Arrhis 'Dicit Creaturam T)ei Fili- 
 um &c. did not defign a Comment upon 
 the Claufe ti xw&ti nor knew of any fuch 
 Claufe in the Anathematifmsj I will not 
 undertake to fecure him. from the Danger 
 of a Jtro?iger Sufpicion concerning his Inte- 
 grity^ than many of thofe which have 
 been railed againit Athanafius. And as it 
 
 is 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. i 8 5 
 
 is utterly Inconfiftent with St. Ambrofe's 
 known Charader, to fuppofe him Capa- 
 ble of defiring to make his Readers be- 
 lieve, that the Council of Nice had con- 
 demned an Expreflion, which he knew 
 they had not condemned ; fo any Account 
 of this Matter, which fuppoles or In- 
 iinuates any thing like it, is for that Rea- 
 fon very Improbable, and the Account 
 which guards againft it, which I think 
 none effedtually does or can do but that 
 which I have given, is alfo, for that Rea- 
 fon, (till the more Probable. 
 
 THESE are all the Obje&ions, which 
 I think can pollibly be made againft the 
 Conclufion 1 have drawn from Sx.Aw- 
 brpfes Comment upon thq Anathematized 
 Exprefllons. I have propofed them as 
 Clearly, and as Strongly, as I could have 
 done if my Defign had been, not to de- 
 fend, but to conviffy Athanajius\ and I 
 have examined them as Impartially, as I 
 could have done, if I had not been at all 
 concerned in this Difpute. All I fear is, 
 that I have dwelt too long upon them, 
 and anfwered them much more Largely 
 than they Deferved : but St. Ambrofe's Tefti- 
 mony is in this Cafe fo very Valuable and 
 Remarkable upon many accounts, that I 
 was willing to make it as Evident and 
 Unexceptionable as I could, 
 
 M 4 HOW- 
 
184 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 HOWEVER, I find I muft be moreTcdi- 
 ons (till, for there is juft now come to 
 my Hands very Opportunely a New Book 
 of yours, called a Collection of Ancient 
 Monuments, in which you have Reprinted 
 and Improved this Charge of Forgery againfl 
 Athanafius > and it happens very conveni- 
 ently that this Cafe of St.Ambrofe is ho- 
 noured with your Firft Improvement, which 
 1 fhall fct down and confider at large. 
 
 ONLY it muft here be Noted, that when 
 in the following Explication of the fe- 
 deral Anathemas, he in the place of 
 the Spurious Claufe mentions the Arians as 
 having falfely ajjerted that the Son was a 
 Creature, but not as the other Creatures, 
 he feems to Hint at Somewhat which now 
 does not appear in any Copy. Terhaps fome 
 At tempted to have procured the Condemnation 
 of Some Such Art an Exprefflon in this Tlace, 
 but failed -, whence a Handle was taken by 
 Athanafius to make this Interpolation after- 
 ward*. This, 1 confefs, is an Improve- 
 merit upon Athanafius convifted of Forgery \ 
 but a very needlefs one, in my opinion j 
 of this fort of TDemonftrat ions "built upon 
 Seeming Hints, and Somewhats, and *Ter- 
 hapisy we had a pretty tolerable Number 
 before, without this, iufficient 1 think to 
 Satisfy any Confcionable Adverfary : but 
 
 • p. 200. 
 
 let 
 
forgery againjl Athanafius. i 85 
 
 let us fee if we can fpy out any Senfc 
 through this ftrange Mift of Words. 
 
 1. IN the firft: place you fay he feemsto 
 hint at fomewhat which now does not 
 appear in any Copy. This he cannot pof- 
 fiblyfeemto do upon any other account than 
 one of thcfe three, either becaufe he does 
 not fay Creatum but Creaturam, or becaufe 
 he fubjoyns non ficut caeteras creaturas y 
 or becaufe his whole Comment upon this 
 Article is taken up with that Additional 
 Claufe; all which Objections have been 
 largely anfwered already. And therefore* 
 as this feeming Hint is the fole Foundati- 
 on of the long Perhaps which follows it, 
 your whole Supposition foils to the ground 
 at once without any farther trouble. 
 
 2. BUT left you Should take it ill, that fo 
 Notable an Improvement fhould not be 
 thought to deferve a more Particular Exa- 
 mination -, 1 proceed to Confider what 
 this fomewhat was, which is feemingly 
 hinted at by St. Ambrofe>> and now does 
 not appear in any Copy. Todifcoverthis, 
 you have advanced the following moil 
 Sagacious Conjefture : Perhaps fome at- 
 tempted to have procurd the Condemnati- 
 on of fome fach Arian ExpreJJlo7i in this 
 place^ but failed. Here by fome fitch A- 
 rian Expreffwn you muft certainly mean an 
 Expre//ion, in which the word Created or 
 Creature was in fome Manner or other ap- 
 plied 
 
i $6 An Anfaer to the Charge of 
 
 plied to our Saviour: but what this Ex- 
 frejjion was or could be, 1 fliould be very 
 glad to be informed. 
 
 WAS it S TLTiqivt the T>ifputed Claufe? 
 Then your Argument contradi&s and de- 
 ft roys it felf y for this does now appear in 
 feveral Copies^ by your own Confeflion. 
 
 WAS it wnvjjLO. cht £>$ e» r x/n^cc- 
 iw> Creaturam non Jicut caeteras Creatu- 
 ras? This I cannot eafily believe that any 
 body did j or would, or could upon any rea- 
 fonable Motive,propofe to the Council with 
 a Defign to procure the Condemnation of it 
 in thisTlace. For thofe who are fuppofed to 
 have attempted this, zn&f ailed jnvi& certain- 
 ly be the Warmed: Men againfl: the Ari- 
 ans in the whole Council , and therefore 
 it is highly Probable, that they would 
 have firll attempted to get the word xttcw 
 or x/rWoi Condemned, as it was firft ufed 
 by the Arians, without taking any notice 
 of the Palliation added afterwards to qua- 
 lify the harflinefs of that Shocking Ex- 
 prejjion. And if they had failed in this 
 attempt^ there was no Poffibility left for 
 them to hope that the Council, which did 
 not think it Blafphemous to call our Sa- 
 viour a Creature? could think it Blaf- 
 phemous to fay He was a Creature^ 
 but not as One of the Other Crea- 
 tures. Befides we are very well af- 
 Jured, that the Arians could upon occasi- 
 on 
 
Forgery againJI Athanafius. 187 
 
 on make foftcning Additions to the other 
 condemned ExpreJJions, and yet we fee the 
 Council has not given us any of thole 
 Palliations in the Anathemas *, and can 
 we "think that thefe Violent Party-men, in 
 a Propofal, which was too Extravagant: 
 for the Council to come into, could be 
 «xore Moderate and Favourable to the A- 
 rians y in the Heat of their Zeal, than that 
 very Council, which rejected this Propo- 
 fal of theirs, was in their Cool Determinati- 
 ons ? And after all, if they did attempt to 
 procure the Infertion of this ExpreJJion in- 
 to the Anathemas^ this was not, 1 think* 
 the Proper Place for that Purpofe. The 
 Method obferved in Composing the Ana- 
 thematifms was plainly and vifibly this, 
 firft to ki down thofe ExpreJJions which 
 made up a Compleat Sentence of them- 
 felves, as h mm ote ji*wj and the like; 
 and then to joyn the fliorter Expreffions 
 together by the Particle $, and make one 
 Sentence of them, that f vilv V $to$ might 
 not be needlefsly repeated, but ferve at 
 once for them all. Now the Claufe wc 
 are confidering is longer than any one in 
 the Anathemas •, and therefore it is not 
 very Reafonable to fuppofe, that any 
 body in the Council would attempt to gcr 
 it inferted in this place, in the middle of 
 the Sentence made up by the fhort Ex* 
 prejjions, 
 1 BUT 
 
i 88 An Anficer to the Charge of 
 
 BUT fince x/nc^a sk co$ it *Tyf XTurjAOLTW 
 
 could not, let us fee whether jctzV* fe eir 
 r xmqj.i'tM could be the ^r/*m Expreffion, 
 propofed to be condemned, but rejected. 
 Propofed, I think, it could not reafon- 
 ably be, becaufe it was ufed by very few 
 of the Avians* and difowned by Arius 
 himfelf: And Rejected, Iamfure, it could 
 not be, unlefs as perfe&ly Needlefs, and 
 already virtually condemned in the other 
 Anathematized ExprefllonS; for I believe 
 even you your felf, as Timorous as 
 you think the Council of Nice was, will 
 not venture to fay that they durft not con- 
 demn an Expreffion which was condemn- 
 ed by feveral Avian Councils. 
 
 THESE three are all the Noted Avian 
 Expveffionsl can recolle£t,in which the word 
 Created was applied to our Saviour : and 
 though 1 will not truft my Memory fo far 
 as to affirm, that there were no other fiichEx- 
 freffions in ufe among them ; yet this 1 will 
 venture to fay, that no other can be In- 
 vented, which will not fall in with one of 
 thcfe. Since therefore none of thefe Three 
 will fuit with your Conjecture, I fhall pre- 
 ilime to fet it alide, as Groundlefs and 
 Falfe. It may not be Improper how- 
 ever to Obferve farther, as another Ar- 
 gument againft this Conjecture of yours, 
 that it depends entirely upon the Suppo- 
 'iinoo, that St. Ambrofe did not act fincere- 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. i 89 
 
 ly in this affair. That this is a NecefTary 
 Suppofition in your Scheme, is too Obvi- 
 otts to need any Proof: That it is a Sup- 
 pofition Abfurd enough to overturn any 
 Scheme, which cannot fland without it, 
 every unprejudiced man muft allow, if he 
 knows any thing of St. Ambrofes Life and 
 Charafter. 
 
 3. BUT St. Ambrofes I find, is not a- 
 buied Alone; Athanafius muft be brought 
 in for His (hare, whatever comes of it> 
 for thus you conclude this mod Important 
 Improvement* Whence a Handle was taken 
 by Athanafius to make this Interpolation 
 afterward. And do you really believe 
 now that this is any Confirmation of your 
 Charge again ft Athanafius ? Can you 
 think it the more Probable, that Atha- 
 nafius made this Interpolation, becaufe 
 fome had in vain attempted to have procurd 
 the Condemnation offomefuchArianExpref- 
 fion in this *Place ? Mull not this Un- 
 fuccefsful Attempt neceftarily make it the 
 more known and talkt of, and much more 
 likely to be remembered, that the Council 
 of Nice had not condemned any fuchEx- 
 prefiion? Would not the Arians and Eu- 
 febians continually objeft to the Orthodox, 
 that they had deferted the Council they 
 pretended to follow, and boldly condemn- 
 ed a Scriptural ExpreJ//on y which their ad- 
 mired Council of Nice neither did nor 
 
 inrfi 
 
i?o An Atifwer to the Charge of 
 
 durfl condemn, but rather by refufing to 
 condemn it, did in effeft declare their Ap- 
 probation of it? Would not this be their 
 Conftant Language upon all Occafions? 
 And did not the Orthodox give themOc- 
 cafion to ufe it every day, by affirming 
 that our Saviour was not Created, and that 
 it was no lefs than Blafphemy in them to 
 fay He was ? Could there ever be a Dif- 
 pute, either Publick or Private, either in 
 Writing or by way of Conference, in which 
 thofe Arians who were prefent at the 
 Council of Nice would not have frequent 
 Opportunities to prefs this upon the A- 
 thanafians? Can we fuppofe that they 
 would ever let flip any Opportunity of 
 Defending themfelves by an Argument fo 
 flrong, and at the fame time fo very Op- 
 probrious to their Adverfaries, as the Au- 
 thority of the Council of Nice it felf? 
 Mull not all this necelfarily make it as No- 
 torious to the whole Chriftian World that 
 the Council of Nice had refufed to con- 
 demn the term Created, as that there ever was 
 fuch a Council called and aiTembled ? And is 
 it not a NecefTary Confequence of this, 
 that Athanafiuss Interpolation muft Una- 
 voidably be Dete£bed as foon as ever He 
 had made it ? And did He then take a 
 Handle to make this hiterpolation from the 
 utter Impoflibility of Succefs, from the 
 certain Profped of Inevitable Ruin, 
 
 from 
 
Forgery agmnjl Athanafius. 1 5> i 
 
 from fuch an Incident as would have 
 immediately determined Him againft: 
 it, though he had been before dif- 
 pofed to do it upon any other Mo- 
 tive ? This was certainly the Strangeft 
 Handle that ever any Man took in 
 his right Senfes, except perhaps the 
 Handle you take here to ftrengthen the 
 Probability of the Charge you have brought 
 againft Athanafius from this Suppofition 
 of yours. Any other Man in the World 
 but Mr. Whijton and Athanafius would 
 have drawn a contrary Conclufion 
 from thefe Premifes : But, it feems, 
 every thing has two Handles^ according 
 to the Old Philofopherj and why might 
 not the Unlearned and Bold Athanafius 
 take the thing by the wrong Handle > as 
 well as the Learned and Modeft Mr. 
 JVH1STON? 
 
 THUS we fee in this fliort Note there 
 are Three Conje&ures , theFirft of which 
 is Groundlefs and Falfe, the Second is 
 drawn from the Firft,and thereforeGround- 
 lefs though it followed rightly from theFirft, 
 it does not follow from it y and therefore 
 would be ft ill Groundlefs though the 
 Firft (hould be True, and is alfo in it felf 
 Improbable and Unreafonable-, the Third 
 is drawn from the Second and therefore 
 Groundlefs, is Abfurd in it fclfto theLaft 
 Degree, and is fo far from being a Confe- 
 
 quencc 
 
1 5? i An Anfiuer to the Charge of 
 
 qucncc of the Second, that the contrary- 
 may with much Greater Reafon be dedu- 
 ced from it. And this is the Formidable 
 Specimen you have given us of the Improve- 
 ments we are to expert in the Courfe of 
 this c Demonftration. 
 
 IT is now high time to proceed to your 
 Next IVitnefs: but as I dare not prefume 
 to hope that the Cenfure of Tedioufnefs 
 has not pafTed upon me already, I find it is 
 withme as with other Offenders, Defpair of 
 Pardon gives me a ftrong Temptation to 
 perfevere in my Fault, and add oneObferva- 
 tion more upon this Head, as a Probable 
 Collateral Argument, though perhaps not 
 of itfelf a Diftina and Full Proof, that St. 
 Ambrofe knew the Council of Nice had con- 
 demned the Term Created, It is drawn from 
 the following Paflage in his Famous Epiftle 
 to the Emperor Valentinian : Cum Us plane 
 bene convenit Arriano, qui CreaturamChrif- 
 tum dicit , quod etiam Gentiles & Judaei 
 prompt iffime confitentur. Hoc fcriptum efi 
 in Ariminenji Synodo, merit oque Concilium 
 illud Exhorreoy fequens Trait at um Conci- 
 HiNicaen'h a quo me nee mors-, nee gladius 
 poterit feparare*. Here he fays, he abhors 
 the Council of Rimini for allowing our 
 Saviour to be called a Creature or Crea- 
 ted Being-, then he gives the Reafon why 
 he abhors them for it, which is no other 
 
 * Up. Ed. tJcncd. Tom. 2. p. 86 2. 
 
 than 
 
Forgery againjl Atfnnafius. i^j 
 
 than his Firm Adherence to the Council 
 of Nice. And from this I think it may 
 be Probably concluded, that St. Ambroje 
 knew that the Council of Nice had pro- 
 nounced a Solemn Anathema againft all 
 thofe who fhould ufe this Expreflion of 
 our Blefled Saviour; and therefore, in 
 Confequence of his Great Veneration for 
 the Nicene Fathers, and his Fixed 'Principle 
 to keep clofe to their Determinations, he 
 could not but abhor and deceft all thofe 
 who, by ufing this Expreflion, or allow- 
 ing the Ute of it, (hewed their Contempt 
 of that Council, and flood Condemned 
 and Anathematized by it. 
 
 BUT perhaps the Cafe may be made 
 ftill Plainer. All this 1 think may be fair- 
 ly and Probably drawn from the Paflage 
 before us, upon the Suppofition that the 
 Word Traiiatus fignifies here nothing 
 more than Concilium Epifcoporum y in quo 
 de rebus Ecclefiafticis TraEtatur, a Coun- 
 cil or an Aflemblyof Bifhops in which Ec- 
 clefiaftical Affairs are treated of. Thus I 
 confefs the Learned T)u Frejne under- 
 ftands it *> and 1 muft alfo confefs that 
 of the many Different Senfes in which ic 
 isufed byEcclefiaftical Writers, I do not 
 find that there is any other produced ei- 
 ther by 6 Du Frefne, or any other Lcxico- 
 
 ■ - ■ - ..— IN 
 
 * GIoiTar. in Voce, 
 
 N graphe^ 
 
194 dn Anpwer to the Charge of 
 
 grapher, which it can poffibly bear in 
 this place: But what if we fhould fup- 
 pofe that Tratiatus Concilii Nicaen? means 
 the Written Decrees of that Council? 
 Traffatores, though it generally fignifies 
 Commentators and Expofitors of Scripture? 
 is yet ufed by St. Jerom for Authors in 
 general •, and if the Writers were TraBa- 
 toresy their Books might certainly be called 
 TratfatuS) Trafts or Treatifes* and if foj 
 why might not the fame word be as 
 properly applied to any thing Written 
 and Compofed by an Aflembly, as by 
 a fingle Author? Tratiatoria, as I learn 
 from T>u Frefne, is ufed more than once 
 by St. Auftirii to fignify a Synodical 
 Epiftle written to promulge a Sentence 
 of Excommunication •, and why then 
 may not TraEiatus here fignify the Sy- 
 nodical Epiftle of the Council of Nice y 
 in which the Sentence of Excommunica- 
 tion given againft Arms and his Followers 
 is promulged, or the Creed and Anathe- 
 mas in which that Sentence is pronoun- 
 ced? The Unknown Author irader the 
 Name of Traedeftmatus ufes the Word 
 Tratfatus for a Confeflion of Faith made 
 by a fingle Bifliop ; and why might 
 it not be ufed as well for a Creed orCon- 
 fefilon made by 300? Butitisneedlefs to 
 infift farther upon Analogy and General 
 Probabilities-, fince the Word is plainly 
 
 ufed 
 
' Forgery againfl AthanafmSo 1 9 $ 
 
 ufed in the Senfe I contend for by St. Am- 
 broje himfelf in the following Noted Paf- 
 fage: Haec cum left a ejjet Epiftola in 
 Concilio Nicaeno, hoc verbum in Traftattt 
 Fidei pofuerunt Tatres, quia id ^iderunt 
 Adverfariis ejje Formidini*. Here it is 
 plain beyond all Poflibility of Contra- 
 di£tion>thztTraffatus Fidei means nothing 
 more than the Nicene Creed and its A- 
 nathemas\ the fame which a little lower in 
 this Chapter he calls Librum Sacerdotalem, 
 an Expreflion which you have pro- 
 pofed to the Confideration of the Learn- 
 ed, with a Large Context, as a Paf- 
 fage monftroufly difficult to be under- 
 ftood, w r hich muft either be applied toy owt 
 Conftitutions, or el fe you cannot at all tell 
 what it means f . But this by the by. 
 What I would obferve from the word 
 Traffatus is, that if it be allowed to have 
 the fame Senfe in St. Ambrofe's Epiftle to 
 Valentinian, as it has in his BookT)e Fide, 
 it will be ftill more clear, that he knew 
 the Council of Nice had Condemned the 
 term Created; For, unlefs he had direftly 
 told us he knew it in fo many words, he 
 could not eafily have exprefled himfelr 
 more plainly than he does upon this Sup- 
 pofition. Itf^0rthofe,fayshe, who allow 
 
 * De Fide 1. Hi. c. 15-. p. 518. 
 
 f Eflfay on the Conftitut, p. 604, 
 
 N 2 our 
 
i9<f An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 our Saviour ttf be called a Creature, foU 
 lowing the Determinations of the Coun- 
 cil of Nice in their Creed and Anathemas j 
 which, in the moft Obvious and Natural 
 Senfe of the Words, without the Leaft 
 Force or Straining, may be fairly Para- 
 phrafed thus : I am firmly refolved to ad- 
 here clofely to the Decrees of the Council of 
 Nice, and upon that Principle I abhor and 
 Anathematize all thofe, who prefume to 
 juftify or permit the Ufe of this Blafphe- 
 mous Expreflion, fo folemnly forbidden 
 and Condemned by that Council. 
 
 BUT though Trattatus Concilii Nicae- 
 n't fhould be underftood to mean nothing 
 more than the Council of Nice, even in 
 that cafe I cannot fee how he could have 
 faid that he abhorred the Council of Ri- 
 mini for allowing our Saviour to be called a 
 Created Being, in Confequence of his Ad- 
 herence to the Council of Nice, if he had 
 known that this Council did not infert the 
 Word Created into their Anathemas, but ra- 
 ther, by omitting it, did 'Direfffy avoid its 
 Condemnation, It may be Objeded indeed, 
 that as the Council of Rimini forbad 
 the ufe of tii^fiA w % *fifyf xmapL&rw, 
 and therefore did not explicitly allow 
 our Saviour to be called a Creature, but 
 only by Implication > fo St. Ambrofe 
 might underftand the Nicene Creed 
 ma Anathemas in the fame manner, 
 
 and 
 
Forgery againfi Athanafius. 197 
 
 and mean no more than that the Word Cre#- 
 ted was virtually condemned by the Council 
 of Nice in the Anathematized Expreflions 
 of the fame Nature and Import. But be- 
 sides that this Objection proceeds only a- 
 gainft the Suppofition of a Neceffary Confe- 
 quence in the Argument I have propofed, 
 which is feldom or never tobeexpe&edin 
 fuch Cafes, and was not fo much as pre- 
 tended to in thisi Could St. Ambrofe 
 poflibly fay that in abhorring thofc who call 
 our Saviour a Created Being he followed the 
 Council of Nice, if he knew that the Coun- 
 cil had not declared their Abhorrence of this 
 Expreffion, or thofe who ufed it* but r&* 
 ther y by avoiding this Declaration, did in ef- 
 fect allow the Ufe of it? He might very 
 well fay he followed the Council of Nice 
 in abhorring fuch as that Coijncil had A- 
 nathematized : but to abhor and anathema 
 tize thofe whom that Council did not a- 
 nathematize, but rather by refufing to con* 
 demn them after a full Examination, did 
 dire£tly pronounce them to be Innocents 
 this is not following the Council, but op- 
 pofing and Contradi&ing it. 
 
 IX. YOUR Ninth Witnefs, the Un* 
 known Author of a Work *De Fide Ortho- 
 doxa contra Arianos, inferted both among 
 Ambrofe s and Nazianzens Works, begins^ 
 you fay, with the Nicene Creed, and its 
 N 3 Ana- 
 
1 5) 8 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 Anathemas, but wholly omits the Claufe 
 before us. 
 
 THE Criticks feem to be generally a- 
 greed, • and 1 think with very good rea- 
 fon, that this Work is not Jxazianzen's-, 
 and if it be St. Ambrofe$> we have feen al- 
 ready, that the Claufe before us was in the 
 Copy of the Anathematifms which he 
 had by him, and confequently that it 
 ought to be in this Copy: But if Vigilius 
 Thapjitanus, as you call him, was the Au- 
 thor of this Work, according to Father 
 Chifflct, you have very providently polled 
 one of your fVitneJfes twice over. Be- 
 fides as thisTreatife (lands among St. Am- 
 brofes Works.thcrc is no Copy of the Creed 
 or Anathemas prefixed to it, as you pretend. 
 The Bened'-ciin Edition of Ambrofe, I per- 
 ceive, led you into this mirtake. Thofe Dili- 
 gent Editors indeed have printed this Little 
 Traft with the Creed, and Preface, and 
 fhort Conclullon, which are added to it, 
 .as is given us among Nazianzens Works. 
 But it feems you was in fuch Violent Haft, 
 that you could not find time to confult 
 their Admonition, which lay open before 
 your Eyes, when you took the pains to fearch 
 out this Teftimony: otherwife you might 
 perhaps have been fatisfied, that the Creed 
 and Preface were not added from any MS 
 or Printed Edition - y but in all Probability 
 for the fame Reafon as they were added by 
 
 Chif- 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. jcjp 
 
 Chifflet* (viz.*) that no body might com- 
 plain, that They had omitted any thing in 
 their Appendix* which had the leait rela- 
 tion to their Author. A Bad Edition of a 
 Book has fometimes led very Learned 
 Writers into fuch Miftakes, as a Man e- 
 very way Inferior to them might eafily 
 correct, by the help of a better Edition : 
 but this is the firft Inftance I have met 
 with, where the Beft Edition of a Book 
 led Three Learned and Judicious 'Perfons 
 into fuch a miftake, as the worft Edition 
 could not have led any Man into, though 
 never fo Ignorant and Injudicious. 
 
 AND after all, whoever "was the Author 
 of this Work, or of the Introduction ad- 
 ded to it* this is Certain, that the Copy 
 fet before that Introduftion cannot be of 
 the lead Ufe or Authority in the Prefcnt 
 Debate -> fince, befides many other Omif- 
 fions and Variations from the Common 
 Copies, it omits fifteen Words together 
 as well as the T>ifputed Claufe, and thole 
 too the very Words which fliould ftand 
 immediately before iu 
 
 X. RUFINUS, the Earlieft of the Ec- 
 clefiaftical Hiflorians after Eujebius, has 
 a Compleat Copy of the Nice?ie Creed and 
 its Anathemas -, but nofignofthisLlaufe, 
 
 * Nequid a nobis praetermiflum queri poflit fhidiofus 
 Le&or, quod ad Vigilium pertineat. Vaullc. p. 61. 
 
 N 4 THIS 
 
jl oo An Anfaer to the Charge of 
 
 THIS Early Hiftorian, it is confefled, 
 in our Prefent Editions, has not the 
 *Difputed tlaufe, among feveral other Va- 
 riations from the Beft Copies; but that 
 he has no fign of it, is not altogether 
 fo certain. Tg7rTov aut Convertibilem vel 
 ^Demutabilemy looks a little Sufpicioufly. 
 What Occafion was there for *£§*& 
 in this Place? Is it a Word of the Laft 
 Importance, that it fhould be thus Diftin- 
 guiftied above all the other Condemned 
 Expreffions? Is it fo very Difficult or Am- 
 biguous a Word, as to make it neceflary 
 for Rufinus to fct it before his Tranflation 
 of it, that his Readers might judge for 
 themfelves whether he had given the true 
 Senfe of it or not? For thefe Reafons 
 Tranflators fometimes retain the Words 
 of the Original in their Verfions, but 
 neither of thefe Reafons will hold here. 
 Tpg7r?ov is only a Confequence of Knfw; and 
 as Inconfiderable a Word as any in the A- 
 nathemas, and as eafy a Word, and of a 
 Signification as Determinate, as any in the 
 Language. There cannot therefore, 1 think, 
 beany Reafon given, why fo Experienced 
 a Tranflator as Rufinus (houldfoCautiouf- 
 ly retain this Word. But if we fuppofe 
 him to have written X.775&V aut Convertibi- 
 lem vel c Demutabilem<> fome Account may 
 be given of the Matter. Ktk&v was a 
 Word of the greateft Importance in that 
 
 Con- 
 
Forgery againji Athanafius. 
 
 toi 
 
 Controverfy, and indeed the Hinge upon 
 which the Difpute turned. Neither was ic 
 of fo very Determinate a Signification, 
 much lefs was Creatum, by which m all 
 Probability he muft have rendered it , for 
 the word Lreare very often in theBeftRoman 
 Authors, and in the Latin Fathers, figni- 
 fies to beget *, as ^Procreation now with 
 us -, and otherwife too, according to St. 
 Aujlin^i does not reach the Notion of 
 wnifti as rather fignifying to make, ex eo 
 quod er at, whereas the other properly fig- 
 nifies to make 1% w onm* or ex eo quod 
 non erat. 
 
 IF any man be fo little acquainted with 
 thefe matters as to ask or wonder , how 
 jcn<7oV could be afterwards changed into 
 tftiflttj as it now ftands-, I anfwer, that 
 the two Words are not fo very Unlike, but 
 that the One might very eafilyget into the 
 other's place, by the Affiitance of the 
 two Following Words aut Convertibilem% 
 which might put the Tranfcnber in mind 
 of Tpc7dlv} whilft he was perhaps ftudying 
 to read xWv> and the Particle aut might 
 confirm him in his Opinion by making 
 
 * Quanquam Latinae Linguae Confuetudine dicarur aliquan- 
 do Creare pro eo quod eft Gignere. Augufi. tie Fi^ie & Syn^h. 
 c. 4. p. 62. T. 3. Ed. Lov. Crccutus eft (Chxiftus fc ) dp ca, 
 <juam Creavit. Id.Serm.ff. de Diver/. T. 10. p. f2j. — Cret- 
 ins eft> non id ipfum fonat in Latino Sormone quod Graeco f 
 Creatio quippe apud nosGencratto vel .NauVitas xiicituj. Hit* 
 ton. Com. in c. 4. Epift. ad Ephef. T. 4. cp!. 371. 
 
 f Creetri autem, ex eo quod erat cotwJi aliq^rid veJConftttui. 
 dtvgufl. c* Adv. Leg. L. ut. 13, T.6\p. 2/4. 
 
 Cm* 
 
2.0L An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 Convertibilem look like a Tranflation of 
 the Greek Word immediately preceding. 
 This Account is ftrengthened and con- 
 firmed not only by the Great Improbabi- 
 lity of the Contrary Suppofition, but alfo 
 by a Parallel lnftance in Socrates" s Copy of 
 Alexander's Epiftle to all the Bifhops of 
 the Catholick Church, in which the Ari- 
 ans are faid to have given the following 
 Anfwer to a Queftion put to them : Naj 
 
 7ni$g)v. Here there is no need of any 
 Great Critical Sagacity to difcover at firft 
 fight, that the True Reading is notr^o*, 
 but x/nssV, according to Athanafius and Ge- 
 lajiusy in their Copies of this Epiftle, 
 which Reading Valefius approves of in his 
 Note upon the Place, and fuits his Tranf- 
 lation to it, though he retains the word 
 r^ls in his Text, for want of Authority 
 from the MSS to alter it, as Ifuppofe* for 
 if he had found KTz^in any of his Copies, 
 he would certainly have told ust)f it in or- 
 der to eftablifh and confirm his Con- 
 je&ure. It is evident therefore in fa£t, 
 that jcn<7ss has in fome MSS been changed 
 into fflEo&fe and confequently that it is no 
 Unreafonable Suppofition in the pre- 
 fent Cafe. This however I will ven- 
 ture to affirm, that many times neither 
 ib Probable an Account as this, nor 
 indeed any Account at all, can be 
 
 given 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 20 j 
 
 given for Alterations, which we are yet 
 fully affured have been made in Antient 
 Authors. And this, I think, may fuffice to 
 fhew, that you was a little too Hafty, 
 when you affirmed fo Pofitively, that Ru- 
 finus has no fign of this Claufe. 
 
 XL THE African Copy of this Creed 
 and its Anathemas* brought from the 
 Council of Nice by Caecilian then Bifhop 
 of Carthage* and folemnly read in a Fa- 
 mous Council held at that place after- 
 ward, nay* and publickly inferted into its 
 A6ls •, has not a Syllable of this Claufe. 
 
 THAT Caeciliarfs Copy was a True One, 
 as alfo the Tranfcript taken from it and 
 inferted into the Original Affs, we can 
 have no reafon to doubt : but that the two 
 Copies in the Prefent Latin and Greek A Eis 
 are fo, we have almoft as little reafon to 
 believe. For in the firft place the Greek 
 Copy omits the word tfatyW, N°. 1. (2)$ 
 7&fa£pftipov op <&£«£ T 5 7ra.Ttpo$, g tfoiAiv is in- 
 ferted N°. 34. (3) In the Anathematifms 
 N°. 41. the word ttd% is omitted. (4)N Q . 
 45". inftead of itu* we have <zb£ t£. (5) 
 N°. 49. we have otM^ for \*A&l$ % (6) u- 
 *7ro&LcnG)$ % is omitted N°. JO. (7) Inftead 
 of cpctcraovras, we have Ae^rasN . 52. (8) 
 Ssica is omitted N°. 53. (9) Inftead of 
 TpeAv h ol\Aomtgv , we have kWowrly 
 7i Tfg7TTcv, N°. 55. Bciides as many 
 other Variations from your True Copy. 
 
 Some 
 
204 dn Anfaer to the Charge of 
 
 Some of thefe indeed may perhaps be 
 thought excufable in a Translation, but 
 the moft Material of them are out of the 
 Benefit of this Excufe ; and the rather be- 
 caufe this Tranflation differs from the 
 Pretended Latin Original in almoft as ma- 
 ny points, as thofe 1 have enumerated in 
 which it differs from the other Greek Co- 
 pies. And as for the Latin Copy it felfj 
 befides the Difference betwixt it and the 
 Greek Tranflation fuppofed to have been 
 taken from it fo long ago, and fome other 
 Variations from theCommonCopies, which 
 1 fhall not flay to infill upon particular- 
 ly j we have in the firft place the words de 
 Spirit u SanEto infer ted N°. 22. which are 
 notorioully Spurious, and acknowledged 
 only by two Extravagantly Interpolated 
 Copies, and the two Creeds Like the Ni- 
 cene in Epiphanius. (2) We have a whole 
 Claufe inferted N°. 29. Sedet ad T)exte- 
 ram Patris. ( 3 ) In the fame place the word 
 Inde is inferted before venturus^ without 
 the Authority of any Greek Copy. (4) 
 N°. 47. Effe, the word which ought 
 to (land immediately before the TJif- 
 puted Claufe, is omitted. »(j) N°. 48. 
 inftead of convert ibilem aut mutabilem y 
 we have matabilem & convert ibilem. It 
 appears therefore, that neither the Latin 
 nor the Greek is a True Copy of theNi* 
 cene Creed, and confequently thatj we can 
 
 not 
 
Forgery againjt Athanafius. 105 
 
 not learn from them, what was or was 
 not in Caeciliaris Copy, which was un- 
 doubtedly True and Exaft, though per- 
 haps it might not deferve the odd Title 
 of an Original Copy, which you have be- 
 llowed upon it, any more than thefe Pre- 
 tended Tranfcripts from it deferved the 
 Great Solemnity, with which you have intro- 
 duced them, for the fame reafon, I fup- 
 pofe, and with the fame fuccefs* as other Di- 
 ligent Sollicitors have fometimes, to the 
 Great Diverfion of the Audienccdrefled up 
 an Ordinary Witnefs in the Habit of a Gen«- 
 tleman, when the Evidence he was to give 
 plainly difcovered the Ridiculous Artifice. 
 XII, XIII. AT the fame Council of 
 Carthage, you fay, where the Tope of 
 Rome had fo Early pleaded a Forged Ca- 
 non of the Council of Nice for Appeals 
 to Rome, and endeavoured to bring the 
 African Churches under his power thereby $ 
 a folemn Mejfage was fent to two of the 
 ^Patriarchal Churches of Conftantinople 
 *nd Alexandria, for Authentick Tranfcripts 
 of the Lreed and Canons of the Council 
 of Nice, as they appeared in their Ar- 
 chives. Which Churches Soon returned 
 them fuch authentick Copies ; and they 
 Were both found exactly to agree with 
 their own Copy, brought from Nice by 
 Caecilian-y and, by Lonfequence, had not 
 the Claufe before us. So that three of 
 
 the 
 
zo6 An Anpwer to the Charge of 
 
 the mojl Famous Churches of the World* 
 who had every one of them Original Co- 
 pes of the A£is of the Council of Nice \ and 
 among them that of Conftantinople very near 
 Nice it felfi and that of Alexandria.the 
 Seat of Athanajius, are mofi Tlain At- 
 iejlations againft it. 
 
 1 AM not at all Concerned in the Tone's 
 Difpute with the African Churches^ nor 
 in the Controverfies it has occafioned a- 
 mong the Learned ; for, I fuppofe, you 
 will not pretend that Athanafius forged 
 this Canon for the Tope's Ufe. I am not 
 more concerned to enquire, whether this 
 was the fame Council^ which is mention- 
 ed in the foregoing Article-, or how long 
 it was before two of the Tatriarchal 
 Churches of Conftantinople and Alexan- 
 dria returned them fuch Authentick Co- 
 pies i or whether it bepofiible, that three 
 Churches fhould every one of them have 
 the Original A6ts> or that any one Church 
 {hould have an Original Copy of them, 
 or any thing elfe. There is another Point 
 too, which you feem to lay forne ftrefs up- 
 on, and that is the Diftance betwixt Con- 
 fiantinople and Nice it felf-> which I think 
 is as little to the purpofe, as any of the 
 other. When the Bifhops broke up from 
 the Council of Nice, do you think that 
 thofe who had the lead way to go, took 
 with them more Exaft Copies of the 
 
 De- 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 2.07 
 
 Determinations they had agreed to, than 
 thofe who were farther from home? Or 
 that the Nicene Creed had fuch a ftrange 
 Tendency to be corrupted upon the Road, 
 that it could not be carried far from Nice 
 without Great Danger of loofing its Ex- 
 aftnefs by the way? But to come to your 
 Main Point. 
 
 THE Copies fent from Conjlan- 
 tinople and Alexandria, you fay, were 
 both found exactly to agree with Caecili- 
 an's Copy $ and, by confequence, had not the 
 Clauje before us. The African Bifhops in- 
 deed 3 in their Letter to theTope^ affirm that 
 in the Copies fent them from Alexandria 
 and Conftantinople they cannot find the 
 Canon, upon which he builds his Claim 9 
 and at the end of the Copy of the Creed 
 fuppofed to come from one of thofe 
 Churches, it is faid, that the Canons an- 
 nexed to it were the fame which had been 
 written out before (which Bp. Beveridge 
 makes to be a Note of Zonaras's) But I 
 do not fee that it is any where faid in the 
 Codex Canomm Eccle/iae Africanae> that 
 the Copies of the Creed, which came from 
 thofe Churches were found exactly to a- 
 gree with their own-, or that the Whole 
 jiffs, as you call them, including the Creed 
 and Anathemas, were founds upon Com- 
 parifon, to agree fo exaflly with thofet 
 which Caeciltan brought from Nice, Nei- 
 ther 
 
zo8 An Anfnver to the Charge of 
 
 iher had they any Occafion to make fuch 
 a Companion, or to collate fo much as 
 the Copies of the Canons with theit 
 own, any farther than barely to fee, whe- 
 ther that Canon, which the Tope had 
 quoted upon them, was Genuin or Spu- 
 rious, which could not but appear im- 
 mediately upon themoft Negligent View. 
 
 YOUR Confequence comes next to be 
 Confidered, which depends not only upon 
 the foregoing Proportion, but alfo upon 
 the Suppofition that Caeciliaris Copy had 
 not this Claufe: But we have already fcen, 
 that you have not proved, nor can prove, 
 that Caectliaris Copy had not this Claufe ; 
 and, by Confequence, your Conclufion is 
 Precarious and Illogical. 
 
 BUT 1 wonder that you (hould con- 
 tent your felf with fuch an Uncertain De- 
 duftion as this, when the very Page in 
 Bp. Beveridge's Synodicon lay open before 
 you, which prefented you with the Co- 
 py which is fuppofed to have been 
 brought from one of thefe Churches. But 
 that Copy, though the T>ifputed Claufe 
 be omitted, will foon appear to be fo lit- 
 tle for your Advantage in this point, that 
 you will find, I believe, no great Reafon 
 to repent, that you did not infift upon it. 
 For in the firft Place the word mvTW is 
 omitted N°. i. (2) N°. 21. The Claufe, 
 mr«ci t<S 3£?,v<£ £ m ov ry yJT, is omitted, 
 
 which 
 
Margery againjl Athana/ius. 202 
 
 Which is Indifputably Genuin, and omit- 
 ted in no other Copy but one, and that 
 Intolerably Faulty. (3) N°. 22. It omits 
 tw k&pwcHS. (+) N°. 23. the word ^ is 
 omitted. ( j) N°. 32. the words rvi retry yj^fgot 
 are omitted. (6) We have g ttccAjv inferted 
 N°.34. (j)\n the Anathemas N°. ^i.inftead 
 of wre we have xougo*. (8) The Claufe, £ 
 ^ei >ewii9wflq »jc w is entirely omitted, N°-46. 
 (9) N°. 53. <J)ct5xovr^ e<*xf» the words im- 
 mediately before the T>ifputed Claufe, 
 are omitted with it* Befides fome other 
 lefs Confiderable Faults. And the Agree- 
 ment betwixt this Copy, and that which 
 you would have to be Caeci Hans Copy, is fa 
 very Exalt, that it does not omit quite 
 Thirty Words, which are Extant in that 
 Copy, to pafs over other Variations. 
 Labbe indeed, in the Codex Canonum, has 
 given us a Copy, as from one of thefe 
 "Patriarchal Churches, which is not alto- 
 gether fo Imperfedt as this : but they agree 
 in the moft Material Faults; and Parti- 
 cularly in the Anathemas, they both^ read 
 x.cagos for 7roT£ y and omit $ tt^v y%w$w<*\ **> 
 iw, and <J>iax,oy}oi4 etvoq. 
 
 UPON the whole Matter, it is Evi- 
 dent, that we have not the lead Tole- 
 rable Grounds, either from the Pretended 
 Agreement with Caeciliarfs Copy, or from 
 the Omiflion of the Claufe in the Copies 
 I iiave iuft now collated, to believe or 
 Q fufpeft, 
 
no An Anfiver to the Charge of 
 
 fufpeft, that the Copies of the Nicene Creed 
 in the Archives of Conftantinople & Alex- 
 andria had not the Claufe before us- y and 
 therefore, notwithftanding all your Pre- 
 pofterous Triumph, you muft give me 
 leave to fet this Double Teftimony afide, as of 
 no Ufe or Authority in the prefent Debate. 
 
 XIV. INtheAtts of the Council of E- 
 fhefuSy and in the Epiftles and other 
 
 Writings, which the Compiler of thofe 
 AEis has Publiflied with them, there are 
 fever al Copies of the Nicene Creed, in all 
 which this Claufe is omitted : but then 
 thefe Copies neither agree with one ano- 
 ther, nor with your True Copy\ one of 
 them Particularly in the Old Latin Tranf- 
 lation publiflied by Baluzius (for in the 
 Greek it is cut off in the beginning with 
 an &c.^) omits and inferts whole lines to- 
 gether. But of the Copies in the A&sof 
 this Council I fhall foon have occafion to 
 treat more largely. 
 
 XV. SOZOMEN's ExaSf Account of 
 thefe Nicene Anathemas has indeed all 
 •the Condemned Expreflions, except that 
 
 in difpute; but there are feveral other 
 words omitted which are in all the Co- 
 pies of the Anathemas. Neither does it 
 appear, that he defigned to give an Exaff 
 Copy of them : fo far from it, that he 
 fays he was difTuaded by his Friends frdm 
 his Firft Intention of inferting a Copy *>f 
 
 the 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 21 1 
 
 the Determinations of the Nicene Council^ 
 upon the Old Principle of Concealing 
 Myilencs from the ol^tzi. However, 
 that his Readers might not be altogether 
 Ignorant of the Decrees of that Synod, 
 c*$ jllyi TTJ-jLL-mv kyvoiiv ra Jc£cc/&, Tij (TuviSop) he 
 tells them, that our Saviour was pronoun- 
 ced to beConfubftantial with theFather,and 
 thofe Anathematized who prefumed to fay 
 there was a Duration when He did not 
 exift, &c. 
 
 XVI. In the Afls of the Council of Xhal- 
 cedon the Creed is feveral times repeated 
 without this Claufe. But what Depen- 
 dance can you have upon thofe Copies, 
 when in that very Copy, which is pre- 
 tended to have been iflferted into the So- 
 lemn Definition made by the whole Coun- 
 cil, which therefore one would expe£t 
 fhould have been cxaftly Right, as be- 
 longing to a Council which was held in 
 Bithynia, almoft 40 Words are infer ted 
 which are not in your True Copy ? 
 
 XVII. I COME now to your Second 
 Improvement, which is no Ick than the 
 Addition of a new Teftimovy. 
 
 CTRIL of Alexandria, the very Church 
 of Athanafius Himfelf, does alfo intirely 0- 
 mit this Claufe in his Copy ; and thereby 
 fecures us, that it was not extant in .the 
 Records of that Church even in the Fifth 
 1 eiUury, 
 
 Q 2 UK- 
 
2 i % An Anf<wer to the Charge of 
 
 UNHATTT and Unfortunate Athana- 
 fius ! You will give me leave to pity Him, 
 I dare fay* fince you cannot forbear do- 
 ing it your felf> where there is as little 
 Occafion for it. Here indeed His Cafe is 
 Deplorable enough to move Pity in an E- 
 nemy, infinitely lefs Generous and Com- 
 panionate, than the Reviver of ^Primitive 
 Chriftianity, who can condefcend to look 
 down with Great Commiferation upon 
 the Ignorance and Superftition of the 
 whole World againft him. This Claufe 
 is moft certainly intirely omitted in the 
 Copy you refer to; and Alexandria was 
 alfo moft certainly the very Church of 
 Athanafius Himfelf as you have very 
 Learnedly Obferved,and moft Emphatically 
 exprefled your Learned Obfervation. And 
 is it not therefore Demonftration that A~ 
 thanajius propagated this Notorious For- 
 gery over the Chriftian World? Can any 
 thing prefs harder upon Athanafius than 
 this Teflimony of His own Church ? Can 
 any man be fo Abfurd as to fuppofe, that 
 if the Claufe had been Genuin, it would 
 not have appeared in the Archives of A- 
 lexandria ? Thefe are Specious Queftions 
 indeed at firft fight; but take in the whole 
 State of the Cafe at once> and confider 
 the Particular Charge againft Athanafius 
 as well as the Authority of the Claufe in 
 general, and then all thefe Fine Queftions 
 
 will 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 2 1 5 
 
 will be refolved into this, or fomething 
 not much more Rational : Can any Man 
 in his Senfes be fo Abfurd as to fuppofe, 
 that He who would not Interpolate 
 His own very Church of Alexandria s Co- 
 py, muft not therefore necefTarily Inter- 
 polate all the Copies He could come at* 
 and fpread His Forgery over the whole 
 Chriflian World? But this Pleafant Con- 
 fequence I fhall have occafion to confider 
 more largely hereafter. 
 
 IN the mean time I muft complain 
 of a Double Falfe Mufter in this Al- 
 legation. Cyrill, it feems, hereby fecures 
 us, that the Claufe was not Extant m 
 the Records of the Church of Alexan- 
 dria even in the Fifth Century. But 
 was you not fecure of this Before? If you 
 was not, you did not deal very fairly by 
 mej for, I am fure, you gave me your 
 Word for it, and under your Hand too, 
 in abetter I had the Honour to receive 
 from you above a Year ago. Was you 
 not Secure of it, when you brought in 
 the Church of Alexandria, the Seat of 
 Athanafius, with fo much Pomp and 
 Triumph, as a mofl Tlain Atteftation 
 againjl theClaufe? But perhaps you might 
 have been Secure before, that Alexandria 
 was the very Church of Athanafius Him* 
 felf and that this Claufe was not extant 
 in the Records qf that Church-, though 
 
 O 3 you 
 
i, 1 4 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 ydu was not altogether fa well aflured , 
 that it was not extant there even in the 
 Fifth Century. No, I cannot allow fo 
 milch as this; for I muft beg leave to 
 be as Pofitive, that the Year 419 alls under 
 even the Fifth Century it felf, as you can 
 be that Alexandria was the very Church 
 of Athanafius Him felf. And it is farther 
 Obfervable, that this Cyrill was the very 
 Bifhop of Alexandria; whofent that Copy 
 of the Creed to Carthage, from which you 
 had before concluded, that the Church of 
 Alexandria was a mofl 'Plain Atteftation 
 againfl their Patriarch Athanafius, Thus 
 it appears, that we have heard the Tefti- 
 mony of Cyrill already, to prove that the 
 Claufe was not extant in the Records of 
 the Church of Alexandria ; and therefore 
 this Improvement prefents us with nothing 
 but an Old Witnefs under a New Name. 
 
 BUT this is not all. For this very 
 Copy of Cyrilfsy which you here refer 
 to, has been already alledged agairitt: Atha- 
 nafius in this very Page, under the Article 
 of the Council of Ephefus. If you think 
 fuch Teftimonies as theft will do you any 
 Service, and make a fine Shew in the Pol!, 
 though they muft certainly be rejecled in 
 the Scrutiny; I can oblige you with ano- 
 ther of the fame Nature in this Part of 
 CyrilFs Works, in his Epiftle to Neflorius 
 *g&.1 £ aKciw^ct!?, inferted alfo into the 
 
 Acts 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 1 1 y 
 
 Afts of the Council ofEphefus. But I am 
 apt to think it would be more for the 
 Credit, and not lefs for the Advantage, 
 of your Caufe, to content your felf with 
 a fingle Teftimony from a fingle Wit- 
 
 nets 
 
 J 
 AUBERTUS, the Editor, does not tell 
 
 us whence he had thefe Epiftles of CyrilU 
 *De Excommunicatione , and In Symbolum 
 Nicaenum: but it is as Probable as any 
 thing of this Nature can poflibly be, thac 
 they were either immediately tranfcribecf 
 into his Edition from the Affs of the 
 Council of Ephefus, or at lead into the 
 MS, from which he took them. For im 
 the firft place, There is not the leaft Dif- 
 ference betwixt the Copies of the Creed 
 in thofe Epiftles, as they ftand among the 
 Works of Cyrilly and in the Ails of the 
 Council, and, what is ftill more Remark- 
 able, the Copy in the firft of them has 
 SV 5 eWiy,(7i T85 clImcls in the Margin, both 
 in the Atts of the Council and the Works 
 oiCyrilL 2. It is highly Probable, to fay 
 no more, that almoft every one of the 
 Epiftles in the Works of Cyrill were tran- 
 fcribed from the A6ls of the Councils for 
 no lefs than fix and twenty of them toge- 
 ther, which make up above 70 Pages, fol- 
 low one another exaftly in the fameOrder as 
 they now occur in the A6is. And this will be 
 found to be ftill more Probable> if we con- 
 O 4 iider 
 
% \6 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 fider the Titles fet before thofe Epiftles : 
 foraetimes we have a Long Title, and in it 
 the Argument and Contents of the Epiftle, 
 which might be a Neceflary Introduction in 
 the Courfc of the A£is-> but it is very Strange 
 and Unaccountable, that it (hould be done 
 only before one or two in a Collection; 
 fometimes we have ry aurS xxieiMa, when 
 feveral Pieces of his were inferted to- 
 gether into the A£ls-, fometimes tcrov I* 
 *m?oXYi$ >ai&<M8, fometimes xvtiWa cLpx i z- 
 e 7rt<T)LQ'7t& kM^cLvSpua^, fometimes cJLp%ti7n<nt6- 
 <xy xuexM.8, fometimes xu^tMa kp£vm<JY.Q- 
 <7rv, fometimes only jo^'mb, &c. which 
 Variations are natural enough in the 
 Atts , where thefe Epiftles are inter- 
 mixed v/ith other Writings of Different 
 Authors, but I think a Collector of Cyril? s 
 Epiftles would either have given always 
 the fame Title, or rather none at all, but 
 only the Direction ; at leaft, I think, he 
 could not have given the very fame Titles 
 which they have in the AEis y if he had 
 not Tranfcribed them from thofe AEls. 
 Many other Confiderations might be of- 
 fered to prove the Great Probability of 
 this: but it is fo very Plain in it felf, that 
 no man, I believe, can doubt of it, who 
 will take the Trouble to compare them. 
 
 IT appears therefore, that the Copies 
 of thefe Epiftles in Cyrills Works , and 
 the Atfs of the Council 9 ftand upon the 
 
 fame 
 
Forgery againjl Athanalius. 1 1 7 
 
 fame Foundation, the Sole Credit and Au- 
 thority of the Negligent Compiler of thofe 
 Ac*ts> and confequently the Teftimony of 
 St. Cyrill here alledged has been heard 
 already, and is very Unreafonably ob- 
 truded upon us again in another form. 
 He had faid before all he could fay for 
 you, and Farther this Deponent faith 
 not: but he has fomething farther to fay 
 againft you -, for in his firft Dialogue T)e 
 TRINITATE * he has a Copy of the 
 Nicene Creed with this Claufe. And that 
 this is Cyrilfe True Copy, and not either 
 of the other two in the A£ls> we have all 
 the reafoninthe world to believe from the 
 Grofs Carelefsnefs of the Publifher of thofc 
 A£is,an& the much Greater Probability that 
 a Claufe fhould be dropt out of two, I 
 might fay out of twenty, Copies, than be 
 inlerted into one. For the Claufe was 
 either Originally in all three of them, or 
 in none of them. If it was Originally in 
 them all, we mud fuppofe that it hasfince 
 dipt out of two of them , through the 
 Negligence of Tranfcnbers, which is the 
 moft Common thing in the World, and, 
 as we have already ken, has moft certainly 
 happened once at lead in this very Cafe: if 
 the Claufe was Originally in none of thefe 
 Copies, according to your Way of account- 
 
 * Op. Tom./, p. 389. 90. 
 
 ing 
 
2 1 8 An Anpwer to the Charge of 
 
 ing for fuch Infertions, we muft fuppofe ano- 
 ther Inftance of Forgery, at a time when 
 there could not pofUbly be the Lead Occa- 
 fion for it-, and fo there will be no End of 
 thefe Sufpicions and Convictions. And I can 
 lcarce think it Pofiible, that any Man can 
 be Prejudiced to fuch a Degree, as to be 
 Capable of doubting which of thefe two 
 Suppofitionsisthe more Reafonablc. 
 
 UPON the whole, it is as Evident as 
 we can expeft or defire it fliould be, that 
 Cyrill acknowledges the ^Difputed Claufe 
 to be a Genuin Part of the Anathemas , 
 and thereby fecures us that it was extant 
 in the Records of that Church % and con- 
 fequently, Cincc two Copies in the Alts of 
 the Council of Ephefus came from Cyrill's 
 own hand, and the other you refer to from 
 a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, 
 who was Principal Notary to that 
 Council, that the Copies in thofe AEts 
 originally had the Claufe before us. 
 And upon thefe Grounds, if I was in any 
 Want of IVitneJfes, 1 might cite the Coun- 
 cil of Ephefus as a more Eminent Evidence 
 than many of yours on the other fide. 
 But I will not be ib Hard with you, I can 
 afford to wave feveral Advantages with- 
 out any Danger to Athanafiuss Reputa- 
 tion, and you may take it as a Favour, 
 if you pleafe, that 1 only fetdown Cyrill as 
 a IVitnefs For the Claufe, and content my 
 
 felf 
 
Forgery againft Athanaiius. z i p 
 
 felf to fet afide the Council as no Wknejs 
 Againft it. 
 XVIU.GELAS1US CyzkamstjonrzTi 
 
 entirely omits the Claufe before us, when he 
 fets down the Nicene Creed and Anathemas 
 by themfelves. This does not very well 
 agree with the Obje&ion you make againft 
 him, as a Famous Tranfcriber from Atha- 
 nafius. But to let that pafs. Gelafius, it 
 is true, has a Copy of the Nicene Creed 
 without this Claufe, and fo has Socrates^ 
 whom yet you will not deny to be an E- 
 minent Witnefs for it* and as this Omiffi- 
 on in one of Socrates s Copies is no Exr 
 ception againft his Teftimony in favour of 
 the Claufe, fo in the Cafe of Gelafius, we 
 have all the Affurance Imaginable, that he 
 believed and knew the Claufe to be Ge- 
 nuin, and confequentiy, that it Originally 
 was and ftill ought to be in this Copy; 
 fince he does not only retain it in his Co- 
 py of Eufebius's Letter, but alfo exprefsly 
 fays in the Chapter next before this 
 Copy of the Creed, that the Council did 
 condemn the Term Created^ and gives us a 
 Copy of the Synodical Epiftle in which 
 the whole Council fay fo too. 
 
 XIX. I HAVE now examined all your 
 Firft Lift of IVitneffes ; but there are two 
 Supernumeraries behind, added in your 
 Second Edition, as a Referve to bring 
 up the Rear, and fupport the former. 
 
 The 
 
220 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 The firft of them is the Author of the 
 Book afcrib'd to Jerom, and intifled* 
 an Explanation of the Faith to Cyril , 
 who, you fay, begins with the Nicene 
 Creed and its Anathema s-, but intirefy 
 emits the Claufe before us. But; why the 
 Book afcrib'd to Jerom ? At this Rate we 
 fhall have your Memorial, and even your 
 Suppofal, dignified with the Title of Books -, 
 For they are Half Sheets, and this is not 
 fomuch. And if The Suppofal fucceeds 
 in its Pretenfions to this Honourable Ap- 
 pellation , there are many other Political 
 Papers ready to put in their Claims, and 
 the Author of a Book in folio intitUed the 
 London Gazette will be a very handfome 
 Periphrafis for that Vulgar Name, the Ga- 
 zetteer. But Gratitude is a very Good 
 Principle, and the Merit of Contributing 
 any thing to the Conviction of Athanafi- 
 us is fo very Great, it feems, that this Piti- 
 ful Forger, purely for giving us a, Falfe 
 and I m per fed Copy of the Nicene Creeds 
 mud be Complimented with the Style and 
 Title of an Author of a Books though 
 you had made your Favourite Author a 
 much better Compliment, if you had de- 
 nied that he ever defigned to give us a 
 True Copy of that Creed. For in the 
 firft Place he inferts the word Noftrum 
 after 'Dominum , which almoft all the 
 other Copies rejeft. 2. After Filium he 
 
 reads 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius, %n 
 
 reads ejus inftead of T>ei y in oppofition 
 to all the other Copies. 3. Betwixt fub- 
 ftantia and Tatris he inferts T)ei, which 
 no other Copy acknowledges. 4. He 
 omits the words*w Tatre Unigenitum^ which 
 are retained in all the other Copies but one 
 or two. f. He puts o/lloboiov in a wrong 
 Place* and inferts ficut Haeretici dicunt in- 
 ftead of it, in the place where it ought to 
 ftand. 6. After per quern omnia he inferts the 
 words vifibilia & invifibilia, which we find 
 no where elfe, but in the Expofition of the 
 Creedtznd one of the Creeds like theNicene 
 in Epiphanius. 7. He omits the word 
 propter before noftram> omitted in no o- 
 ther Copy but one. 8. He omits the Ar- 
 ticle of our Bleffed Saviour's Defcent from 
 Heaven, exprefled in the word T)efcendit> 
 which is unanimoufly retained in all the 
 other Copies. 9. After Spirit urn SanAum* 
 he adds, £ui de Tatre proceffit proprie 
 & 'Deus eft Verus ficut Filius. 10. In 
 the Anathematifms after non erat he 
 adds Filius Natus, contrary to all the o- 
 ther Copies. 11. Afacvfaffus fit he adds 
 aut natus fit > without the Concurrence 
 of any other Copy. 12. He omits vel ex 
 alia fubftantia aut ejfentia> the Claufe im- 
 mediately preceding that in THfpute. 
 And befides all thefe, and fome other Va- 
 riations of lefs Confequence 3 he omits no 
 lefs than 12 other Words* which are ex- 
 
 tant 
 
in An Anfvjer to the Charge of 
 
 tant in your own True Copy. This Wit- 
 nefs therefore I take the Freedom to fee 
 alide as Perfectly Ufelefs and Infignificant. 
 And fo far I find your Improvements have 
 kept up to the Specimen you gave in the 
 Cafe of St. Ambrofe, or indeed rather ex- 
 ceeded it. One more only remains to be 
 confidered, and that is the Teftimony of 
 VigilmsThapfitanus. Let us hear therefore 
 what he has to fay. 
 
 XX. VIG1L1US THAPS1TANUS, 
 the Probable Author of tloe Athanafiav 
 Creeds in his Account of a Pretended T)jf- 
 putation of Athanafius and Arms before 
 Probus as a Judge > which is printed after 
 t r sjo Editions among the Spurious Works of 
 Athanafius , fets down the Nicene Creed 
 and Anathemas -, but has not in either Edi- 
 tion any Sign of this Claufe. 
 
 V1G1L1US Thapfitanus, the Trobable 
 Author of the AthanafianCreedl Youfeem 
 to have wonderfully abated of your Ajfu- 
 ranee in this matter. You could formerly 
 fpeak of it, as of a thing Certain and Un- 
 deniable, and abufe poor Vigilius upon it, as 
 readily as if you had flood by him whilfthe 
 was writing this Impious and Antichriftian 
 Creed.S'mce that, you may perhaps have met 
 with the 'Diatribe at the End of the Bene- 
 diEiin Edition of Athanafius^ or fome other 
 fuch Treatifej and learnt that the Author of 
 this Creed is not fo well known as is ge- 
 nerally 
 
Forgery againji Athanafkis. 22$ 
 
 nerally Imagined. But what does the 
 Athanafian Creed ftgnify to the Toint in 
 gueftion? What occafion was there for 
 the Infertion of this Claufe? That it was 
 added with noDefign at all, cannot befup- 
 pofed of fo Accurate a Writer, in a 'Demon- 
 stration fo clofely and Mathematically ma- 
 naged) and concluded with the Ufual Sign 
 of Triumph, QJL D. And to fhew your 
 Learning it could not be written 5 fince 
 nothing is more known than that, in the 
 Opinion of fome Learned Men, Vigilhis 
 was T rob ably the Author of the Athana- 
 fian Creed. The only Account therefore, 
 which can be given of it, is y that it was 
 inferted in order to add Strength to Vigi- 
 liuss Teftimony. And all the Strength it 
 can poflibly add is no more than this: 
 Vigilius was Trobably the Author of the 
 Athanafian Creed* and therefore Trobably 
 very Orthodox ; and confequently we can 
 not reafonably fuppofe, that he would 
 have omitted this Claufe, if he had known 
 it to beGenuin. Now this either may rea- 
 sonably be fuppofed of your other Wit- 
 nejfes y or it may not. If it may not, where 
 is the Additional Strength which Vigilius's 
 Teftimony receives from this 'Probability? 
 If you will allow that it may be reafona- 
 bly fuppofed of your other JVitnvffes* then 
 I confefs you have added Strength to the 
 Teftimony of Vigilius* tbuc £q very 'Pro- 
 
 fufcly, 
 
214 ^ n dnfaer to the Charge of 
 
 fufely, that you have left none for the 
 reft of your IVitneffes ; for if it may be 
 reafonably fuppofed that they would have 
 omitted this Claufe* though they had 
 known it to be Genuin, it is not very 
 Reafonable to fuppofe it Spurious, becaufe 
 they have omitted it. And indeed, this 
 Probability is fo far from giving Vigilius 
 any Advantage above your other IVitneffes % 
 that if this be all you have- to fay for him, 
 every one of them, except Eitfebius and 
 Cyrill of Jerufalem* will be more Eminent 
 and Subftantial than he can pretend to be 
 upon the Strength of his Probable Title 
 to the Athanafian Creed. For all the reft 
 were mod Certainly as Zealoufly and 
 Notorioufly Orthodox as the Author of 
 the Athanafian Creeds whoever he was. 
 And the Only Principle, which can give 
 Vigilius any Preference above your other 
 IVitneffes^ from the Probability of his be- 
 ing the Author of this Creed* is, that the 
 more Notorioufly Orthodox any Writer 
 was, he is for that reafon the more Au- 
 thentic}?. JVitnefs againft the "Difputed 
 tlaufe. Since therefore they were all as 
 Certainly Orthodox as Vigilius was Pro 
 bably fo upon the Suppofition of his be- 
 ing the Probable Author of this Creeds 
 that Suppofition gives him no other Right 
 to be believed in this Cafe 3 but what your 
 other IVitneffes have in a greater Degree 
 
 with* 
 
forgery againft Athanafius* *if 
 
 \vithout it, nay no other than what he 
 himfelf has alio in a much Greater Degree 
 from thofe Writings which are known and 
 acknowledged to be his. But to leave 
 this Odd Parenthefis* and come nearer to 
 your main Point* 
 
 F1GILIUS, it is true, in his Account 
 of a Tretended Ttifputation of Athanafius 
 and Arius y fets down the Nicene Creed 
 and Anathemas without this Claufe. But 
 then 1 obferve, that in the firft place he 
 inferts the word Noflrum after Ttominum, 
 which is manifeftly Spurious , and ac- 
 knowledged by none of the other Copies, 
 but two or three, and thofe very Faulty. 
 
 2. He omits the words propter nos homines 
 &> retained in almoft all the other Copies, 
 
 3. He omits & before refurrexit, which 
 is omitted only in three other notorioufly 
 Imperfeft Copies. 4. In the Anathemas 
 he omits faffus eft, after non extantibusy 
 omitted in no other Copy. 5. He omits effe 
 after dicentesy the word which ought to 
 Hand immediately before the ^Difputed 
 Claufe. 6. Inftead of *Dei Filium he reads 
 *Deum with one of Hilary's Copies, contrary 
 to all the other, and even to Common Senfe > 
 Befides feveral other Variations from 
 your True Copy. And it is farther Obfer- 
 vable, that the Copy in Vigiliuss Second 
 Improved Edition of this ^ifputation dif- 
 fers from this in no lefs than Six feveral 
 
 P Places. 
 
zi6 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 Places. To which I fhall only add at pre- 
 fent, that Vigilius in his Book T>e Uni- 
 tate Trinitatis, under the name of St. 
 Auftin>> has two Paflages which, when laid 
 together, may perhaps be allowed to af- 
 ford room for a very Probable Conjecture, 
 that he knew the Council of Nice had 
 Anathematized this Expreffion.. The Book 
 is written in the way of Dialogue, and 
 not far from the Beginning of it, he brings 
 in Felicianus the Arian exprefling him- 
 felf thus. Quoniam me difputandi arte 
 concludes ', id quod a majoribus noftris diSium 
 eft y breviter explicabo. Aiunt enim, quoties 
 de Initio Fi/ii> & Tatris Aetemitate 
 trattatur : Erat quando non erat, & Ante- 
 quam nafceretur non erat *. And within 
 a Page or two, the fame Felicianus fays : 
 Quoniam me ad ejufmodi confejjionem necejfi- 
 tate compelliS) id quod a majoribus noftris diet 
 affolet) non tacebo. Aiunt enim, Creaturam 
 ejfe Filmm> fed Terfeffam, & quae domi- 
 nari pojjit omnibus Creaturis f. I content 
 my ielf barely to fugged this Argument, 
 partly becaufe it is Obvious enough in all 
 the Force I pretend to give it, and partly 
 becaufe I am determined to wave this ana 
 the other Obje&ions 1 have made, fo far 
 as to allow Vigilius a place in the Lift of 
 your Witneffes, iince he is the Laft, and 
 
 Op. Vigil, p. 335. Ed. Cbiffl. f lb. p. 338. 
 
 the 
 
Forgery againfl Athanafius. 227 
 
 the Poll of your Side at an End, that we 
 may enter upon the Scrutiny in good 
 humour: but 1 cannot be fo Complaifant 
 as to allow him to be a very Valuable IVit- 
 nefs, on the Contrary I muft ftill lnfift up- 
 on thefe Obje&ions ip far as they prove, 
 which I think they fully do, that hisTe/fi- 
 mony is very Uncertain and Precarious. 
 
 ANT) now, Sir, to fum up your Evi- 
 dence, and enter into the Merits of the 
 Caufe* Four of your Twenty fVitneffes, 
 Eufebius, Ambrofe, Cyrill of Alexandria, 
 zndGelaJius, are plainly againfl: you; Four 
 others, Cyrill of Jerufalem, Epiphanius , 
 The Author of the Expo fit ion, and the 
 Author of the Book T)e Fide, have nothing 
 to fay in this Controverfy-, Four more 
 {viz.) the Conjlantinopolitan Copy , the 
 Alexandrian Copy, the Council of Ephefus, 
 and the Explanation of the Faith, have 
 been fet afide upon jufl and fure Grounds. 
 To thefe I fhall only add St. Bafil, who has 
 been proved to be, at leaft, no JVitnefs 
 againfl the Claufes and I believe I might 
 have reckoned him amongfl: the Witnefles 
 for it,and oppofed him to almoft any One 
 of yours, without any Danger of being 
 thought to have laid too Great a Strefs 
 upon the Words which follow his Copy of 
 the Creed. There arc dill Seven JVitneffes 
 left you, for your Comfort: but againfl: 
 every one of thefe too fome very ju(l Ex- 
 P 2 ception 
 
ii8 An Anfiver to the Charge of 
 
 ception has been made) and all of them 
 have been proved to deferve very Little 
 Credit in this Cafe from the Falfe Teftimo- 
 ny they fo frequently give in others -, from 
 the Great want of Care and Accuracy in 
 their Depofitions-, from their Inconfiftency 
 with one another, and fometimes with them- 
 felves* or fuch Particular Arguments as give 
 us Grounds to believe, that if their Teftimony 
 had been delivered down to us uncorrupted, 
 it would have been for the Advantage of 
 t he Claufe. On the other fide appear already 
 Eufebiusy Athanafius , Ambrofe, Cyrill of 
 Alexandria, Socrates, and Gelafius Cyztce- 
 nus-y and againft thefe there lies no other 
 Exception, but that Socrates and Gelafius 
 were Famous Tranfcribers from and Follow- 
 ers of Athanafius, which has been large- 
 ly anfwered. In order therefore to de- 
 termine whether the T>ifputed Claufe be 
 Genuin or Spurious, it remains to be con- 
 fidered, whether thofe who omit it are to 
 be believed, according to your Opinion, for 
 which the only Reaibn you have given is 
 their Number > or thofe who acknowledge 
 it, as I think, for which my Reafons are 
 as follows. 
 
 I. THERE are more Witneffes for the 
 Claufe, than againft it. For befides the 
 Six 1 have mentioned already, in Oppofi- 
 tion to your Seven, 
 
 (i.) WE have the Dire£t and Exprefs 
 
 fefiu 
 
Forgery againfl Athanafius. 2.19 
 
 Teftimony of the whole Council of Nice 
 it felf, in their Synodical Epiftle, that they 
 did condemn the Term Created* as I (hall 
 prove to you at large before I conclude. 
 
 (2.) EUGEN1US, in his Apology for 
 Marcellus, written and prefented to Atha- 
 nafius in the Name and by the Authority 
 of the whole Church of Ancyra, declares 
 as much in the following words: 'H/utis 
 
 yyovcy C4> th %p vmcuolv cruvoS'ct)* ex. £ «Wj y tul- 
 7£os ilvoq t c tjov, 39 o/LLosaiov rcS 7rcLT&> X) fxym 
 KTI2MA (iwn *mwi{ABL eivoq clvtqv *. 
 
 (3.) THEOT>ORlT gives us no Copy 
 of his own: but fince he commends, and 
 inferts into his Hiftory, Athanafiuss E- 
 piftle to Jovian* and in it the Creed se;*YA 
 *&» Claufe before us, for fA* Benefit of his 
 Readers fj I think that Infertion and Ap- 
 probation may fairjy be reckoned a Tefti- 
 mony in favour of the Claufe. For he could 
 not have done this if he had known it to be 
 Spurious, which yet, if it had been fo, he can- 
 not, without thegreateft Abfurdity, be fup- 
 pofed not to have known 7 coming to the 
 writing of his Hiftory with the Confefled 
 Advantage of fo many Original Records 
 and other Tapers, befides the Qualifica- 
 
 * Ap. Montfauc. Coll. Nov. Tom. 2. p. 2. 
 §r<ptMi#s. Thcod. H.E. 1. iv. 02. p. ifi. 
 
 P 3 tions 
 
130 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 tions of "Diligence and Faithfulnefs in a 
 Greater Degree, as you pretend, than the 
 other Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians. And in- 
 deed, if the Council of Nice had avoided 
 the Condemnation of the Term Created, it 
 is next to Impoilible, that not only Theo- 
 dorit> but even almoft any other Bifhop, 
 could be Ignorant of a thing fo very Re- 
 markable in it felf, and which mud necef- 
 farily have been kept in Conftant Remem- 
 brance by the Ufe which the Arians would 
 have made of it in all their Difputes with 
 the Orthodox. 
 
 (4.) NAZIANZEN, though he alfo 
 gives us no Copy of the Nicene Creed, 
 may yet upon the fame account, very 
 juftly bethought a more Subftantial fVitnefs 
 for theClaufe, than feveral of yours againft 
 it ; flnce he is fo very Lavifh in the praife of 
 AthanaJiaisEpiftlctoJovzanyand calls it a 
 Magnificent and Royal Prefent * : And as 
 he was too Good a Man to have done 
 this, if he had known that ib Bafe a Cheat 
 was Tropagated in that Epiftle j fo he was 
 too well acquainted with the Arian Con- 
 troverfy, to be fuppofed not Capable of 
 Difcovering this Notorious Forgery* which 
 could not eafily efcape the Obfervation of 
 anyChriftian, who had fo much as heard 
 of the Council of Nice, and its Decrees. 
 
 (5.) FA CUNT) US, a very Learned 
 
 * &a{ot (ZxnXiw ctTus G /t*«^«Aojr£STs$. Orat.xxi. p. 394. 
 
 Bifliop* 
 
Forgery againji Athanafius. 1 3 1 
 
 Bifliop, though a little Later than your 
 Period, in his Tenth Book Tro T)efen- 
 fione Trium Capitulorum has the following 
 Pa/Tage*: Quid eft autem quod in Mo inex- 
 cufabile jam invenerant, fi in "Dionyfio po- 
 tuit excufari, quod FaEluram ejfe dicit FU 
 Hum 23*7, & extraneum ab EJfentia Patris* 
 & quia non erat antequam fieret ♦, cum Ta- 
 tres apud Nicaeam Anathematizaverint eos 
 qui dicunt, erat quando non erat-, & ante- 
 quam nafcereturnon erat,& quidicuntFa5lum 
 <vel ex alia effentia ejfe Filium 'Dei ? Here, 
 where he fays that the word faffum was 
 anathematized, 1 will not pofitively affirm 
 that he refers to the Claufe in T>ifpute -, 
 though there may be fome Probable Rea- 
 fons given for it, and his Tranflations 
 from the Greek, if he made them him- 
 felf, are not always fo very Accurate as 
 to give us reafon to conclude, that he 
 could not render x/ngoV by fattum. How- 
 ever, I cannot doubt but this will be al- 
 lowed to be every way as Clear and Sa- 
 tisfactory a Teflimony in favour of the Claufe, 
 as that which you have drawn againft it, 
 from the Copy of the Nicene Creed in 
 the AEls of the Council of Carthage. 
 
 (6.) SINCE I am come down below 
 your Period, I fliall juft mention one Au- 
 thor more, and that is Nicephorus, the 
 Ecclefiaftical Hiftorian, who undertakes 
 
 * Inter Op. Sirmond. T. 2. col. 737. 
 
 P 4 to 
 
% 3 2, An dnfwer to the Charge of 
 
 to give us a very Exaft Copy of the i\T/- 
 r*w Creed and Anathemas, m\ xtym, as 
 he fays, in which the UiJputedClaufe ftands 
 in its proper Place. Nicephoruss Tefti- 
 mony is not Antient enough, I confefs, to 
 be of any very Great Weight in this Cafe: 
 but then it ought to be confxdered on the 
 other hand, as fome Compenfation for his 
 Deficiency in the point of Age, that as 
 an Eccleiiaftical Hiftorian, whofe bufinefs 
 it was in a Particular Manner to fearch for 
 Original Records, and to make the Niceft 
 Enquiry into thefe matters, he muft upon 
 that account be much more Likely to fur- 
 nifh us with a true Copy of this Creed, 
 than any other Author caeteris paribus. 
 And this Prefumption is confirmed by the 
 Correfpondence of the Fad>* for it will 
 foon appear, upon the Collation, that 
 Nicephorus's Copy is more Accurate than 
 many of thole which we have from Writers 
 of Greater Antiquity and Reputation. 
 
 BUT I am under no Neceffity of go- 
 ing lower than the Fifth Century to feek 
 for Witnejjes, and without any Afliftance 
 from Facundus or Nicephorus, 1 might 
 fafely put the Iflue of the Caufe. upon the 
 Poll, which you fo earneftly defire in your 
 Difputes with the Orthodox -, oppofing 
 to your Seven IVitnejfes, the Contrary At- 
 tentions of Gelafius Cyzicenus, Theodorit, 
 Socrates, Cyril/ of Alexandria > Ambrofe y 
 
 Nazian~ 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. z 3 $ 
 
 Nazianzen, the Church of Ancyra, A- 
 thanafiusi Eufebius , and the Council of 
 Nice. But this Advantage is what 1 leaft: 
 infift upon. ACritick will not be deter- 
 mined to a Reading from the Number, but 
 the Goodnefs, of his MSS ; neither will a 
 Judge decide a Caufe upon the Majority, 
 fo much as the Credibility of the JVit- 
 neffes. Let us therefore confider the feve- 
 ral Writers in both thefe Views. 
 
 II. IF we confider them as fo many MSS, 
 fome of which retain, and others omit, a 
 Word or Claufe, which may be either re- 
 tained or omitted without any Damage to 
 the Senfe and Conftru£tion; In that cafe 
 a Critick would enquire, which of his 
 Copies were taken neareft the Original, 
 which the mod Antient, and mod Exa£t. 
 As to the two firfi: of thefe Advantages, I 
 prefume, there can be no Difpute; flnce 
 Eufebius^ and Athanafius are not only the 
 molt Antient, but alfo the only Perfons 
 who were prefent at the Council. But as 
 Antiquity in a MS feems to be therefore 
 chiefly Valuable, becaufe the more Anti- 
 ent it is, the fewer Tranfcriptions are like- 
 ly to have paffed betwixt it and the Ori- 
 ginal •, fo the Advantage of coming near- 
 eft the Original depends upon the Proba- 
 bility of its being upon that account the 
 more Exa£t: The Exactnefs of a MS 
 therefore is what gives it the Greateft Au- 
 thority, 
 
2. 3 4 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 thority, and in this Refpeft the Copies 
 which want the Claufe cannot (land the 
 leaft Comparifon; all of them abounding 
 with Faults and Variations from one a- 
 nother, and moft of them omitting many 
 other Words as well as thofe beforeus. 
 
 III. IF we confider them as fo many 
 JVitneJJes, attefting or not attefting to a 
 Matter of Fad, Eufebius and Athanafius, 
 and they only, were upon the Place where 
 the thing is pretended to have been done > 
 if others therefore poffibly might, They 
 could not poffibly be Ignorant whether it 
 was done or not. 
 
 IV. WE have this farther Advantage 
 in the Evidence which Athanajius gives in 
 favour of the Claufe, that He is attended 
 by His Suffragan Bifhops, and His Tefti- 
 mony Confirmed by Their Concurrence > 
 His Epiftle to Jovian being written in the 
 Name of an Aflembly of Bifhops, and 
 thofe the Reprefentatives of all the 
 Bifhops of Aegypt and Lybia, as the Di- 
 rection plainly intimates *, upon which ac- 
 count Theodorit gives it the Title of a 
 Synodical Epiftle. Here it may perhaps be 
 Objedted, that Athanafius cannot bt zfVit- 
 pe/s in His own Caufej to which I reply 
 (though His Caufe will eafily fupport it 
 ielf without any Affiftance from HisTefti- 
 
 Ap, Theod.E. h. i. iv. c. 3. p" 15-2. mony) 
 
forgery againft Athanafius. 2. 3 5 
 
 mony) that in Judicial Caufes, where the 
 Perfon accufed hears his Charge, his De- 
 nial of the Fafris juftly efteemed no Proof 
 of his Innocence? as being fuppofed Ne- 
 ceffary for his Defenfe : but here the Cafe 
 is widely different) where your Intcrefting 
 Athanajius's Integrity in a Point of Criti- 
 cifm, to be decided by the Number and 
 Value of the Copies, and other Proper Cri- 
 tical Arguments, ought not to fet afide 
 the Authority of His Copies. And as 
 you put the IfTue of the Difpute, whe- 
 ther the Claufe be Genuin or not, upon 
 the Number of Copies ; that Queftion 
 muft firft be Determined, and in order to 
 it all the Copies extant muft be taken in- 
 to the Account, before we can pretend to 
 enquire into theOrigin of theOmiflion orln- 
 terpolation. The Interpolation muft firft be 
 proved to have been made by fome body,be- 
 fore any body can be charged with it* The 
 Reading muft firft be proved Spurious, be- 
 fore the Tranfcriber of any Copy in which 
 it is, can be accufed of inferting it, and his 
 Teftimony excluded upon that Accufation. 
 V. AMBROSE'S Teftimony is in this 
 Difpute Equivalent to a great many o- 
 thers, not fo much becaufe it is more An- 
 tient than the Greateft Part of your Evi- 
 dence, as becaufe the Words before us are 
 flipt out of his Copy, whilft his Com- 
 ment plainly fliews that they ought to be 
 
 there, 
 
z$6 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 there, and Originally were fo. Upon this 
 account, I fay, he is a more Subftantial Wit* 
 nefsy than if the Claufe had been preferved 
 in his Copy of the Anathemas, without 
 any Comment upon them. In that cafe 
 it might pofllbly have been faid, that the 
 Words were inferted after his time by fome 
 Athanafian> which Evafion is now entirely 
 prevented : Neither can it be faid, that 
 fome Athanajianhzs Interpolated his Com- 
 ment -, for that no man in his Senfes 
 would do, without Interpolating the Text. 
 
 VL ALL the Witneffes for the <Dif- 
 pated Claufe have feveral Advantages in 
 common over yoursagainfl.it. Oneofthefe, 
 and not the Leaft, is the Different Nature 
 of their Teftimonies. It is a (landing Rule, 
 that one Pofitive Witnefs is Equal to two 
 Negative : and yet as little weight as Ne- 
 gative Witneffes have when oppofed to 
 Pofitive, you cannot pretend to fo much 
 as one, who dire&ly denies, that the 
 Council condemned the Term Created; where- 
 as, befides the Pofitive Evidence in the 
 Copies which retain the Claufe, we have 
 Witneffes who direftly affirm, that the 
 Council did Condemn that Term, 
 
 VII. ANOTHER General Advantage 
 is, that thefe Pofitive Witneffes agree as 
 much as can Poffibly be expe£ted 3 yours on 
 the contrary differ lb much, and often fo 
 rimerially, from one another, thnnoman* 
 
 ner 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 257 
 
 ner of T>ependance can be had upon them. 
 Particularly almoft all the Copies in the 
 Afts of the Councils are fo mangled and 
 Corrupted, and havefo Numerous and fo 
 Confiderable Variations from the other Co- 
 pies and from one another, that they may 
 juftly be thought the mod Infignificant 
 Part of your Authorities. And it is far- 
 ther Obfervable, that Moft of your Wit- 
 nejfes give their Evidence againft feveral 
 Indifputably Genuin Words in the Creed 
 and Anathemas, as pofitively as againft 
 thefe two before us; and have therefore 
 forfeited all right to be believed in the 
 Prefent Cafe, by the Falfehood of their 
 Teftimony in others. 
 
 VIII. THE Remarkable Omiffions and 
 Variations in the Copies, which have not 
 this Claufe, about the Place where it fliould 
 ftand, afford us a very Probable Ar- 
 gument for it. Several Copies omit 
 the word before it, fome the two words 
 before k, others invert the Order of the 
 following words •, Many, with your True 
 Copy, omit % before rps-^cv, and fo make 
 a manifeft Hiatus in the Period, This 
 Chajm and the other Variations plainly 
 fliew, that there has been either a little 
 Foul Play, or a Great Deal of Negligence 
 hereabouts > and are much rather the 
 Footfteps of an Arian or Semiarian Cor- 
 rupter, than of an At hanafian Interpolator . 
 
 BUT 
 
1 3 8 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 BUT it may perhaps deferve to be 
 confidered whether the Particle % before 
 Tpe^ov be Genuin or Spurious. That it is 
 Genuin I think is very clear from the fol- 
 lowing Reafons. i. Without it the 
 Courfe and Connexion of the Sentence is 
 interrupted and broken, as I have already 
 obferved. *. It is retained in no lefs than 
 fifteen of thofe Copies which want the 
 'Difputed Claufe> where no Athanafian 
 Forgery can poflibly be fufpeEied. 3. E- 
 ven you, who believe * x/ngoV to be an In- 
 terpolation of AthanaJius'Sy muft, in Con- 
 fequence of that Suppofition, allow it to 
 be highly Probable, that the Conjunction 
 % before rgndiov is Genuine for if the Coun- 
 cil had wrote — 0ccaWk$ Sv^j TpiiSov * iX- 
 XHuSiori the Interpolator would moft cer- 
 tainly have been content with the addition 
 of the word x.n<&v y and not have altered 
 the Connexion and Conftru&ion of the 
 Period by the addition of another word, 
 which muft neceflarily make his Interpola- 
 tion more Eafy to be Dete&ed. I fet it 
 down therefore, as a thing Certain and not 
 to be denied by any man who is not fo 
 abfurd as to require Mathematical 
 Demonftration in a Difpute about a 
 Various Reading, that \ before rga^Jv is 
 Genuin. And hence it follows, that very 
 nigh half your Copies befides their other 
 faults, are Corrupted and Imperfect in the 
 
 very 
 
Forgery againji Athanafius. 159 
 
 very place where the 'Difputed Claufe 
 ought to ftandj and confequently, that 
 they cannot furnifli us with a fatisfa&ory 
 Argument againft it, but rather on the 
 Contrary give us Grounds to fufpeft,that 
 fomething elfe has been omitted as well as 
 this Particle. 
 
 IX. THERE is alfo this Internal Cha- 
 rafter in favour of the ¥)ifputed Claufe, 
 that the Expreffion condemned in it was 
 the Principal Blafphemy of Arius, and in- 
 deed the Source of all the reft, and in a 
 Peculiar manner of the words which im- 
 mediately follow x/n<zw in the Anathemas* 
 Tpe<xH$ and kfcoiaVov *, as we learn from 
 feveral Writers, and particularly from 
 Alexander Bifliop of Alexandria in his 
 Letter to the Bifliop of Confiantinople^ and 
 from the Words of the firft Avians them- 
 felves given us by the fame Alexander in 
 his other Epiftle, directed to alltheBifhops 
 of the Catholick Church. And it is high- 
 ly Improbable, that they would fpareThat, 
 
 •h ctKo\9%><i <# <f>tmt ocutoo Tgarim i '- ,eX4 $&***$' Alexand. Epifi. 
 ad Alex..Conllantinopolitanum ap. Thcod. E.H. 1. 1. c.4. a**' 
 5»5 f*tv T nvtyiiAxTHP £ j<»J>Tr~» fa — 010 Vj rgttfis s<* ig drowns 
 
 vTm'pxav. Verba Arii fuorumque in Epifi. Ejufd. Alex, ad omn. 
 Epiic.ap.Soc. 1. i. c. 6. tfyv aCnS i uany*-/* rP xXuin yyiwj. 
 — &nrS ivU TUT* Aoytf £ <5 wbAA^s £ y.<x.yAc, Te/-£*s$ iXuavcc,, k. 
 r* A. Epiph. H. 6$, p« 736. \% ttiC-n-^ *v r >><\ikc,— M>7iz>* to 
 tjotk oivTvZ jirmiTTiq, Id. ib. p. 73S. 
 
 and 
 
240 An Anfweir to the Charge of 
 
 and condemn thefe, which are only Con* 
 fequences of it, and Expofitions and 11- 
 luftrations of that Original Errour. And in- 
 deed it is fcarce Probable that they would 
 have thought of condemning thefe two 
 words, if the word #a$w going before had 
 not put them in mind of the Conclufion 
 which the Avians drew from it i efpecially 
 fince they omitted other more Confi- 
 derable Rxpreflions ufed by Arius and 
 his Followers. 
 
 TO this I forefee it may be replied, " That 
 M the Nicene Fathers were too Good Men, 
 <f to Condemn an Expreffion ufed in Scrip- 
 ture; and that it is a Stronger Prefump- 
 cr tion that they did not condemn it, becaufe 
 'it was applied to our Saviour in Scripture; 
 <c than that they did condemn it, becaufe ic 
 <c was applied to Him by Arius. This there- 
 fore may be thought an Anfwer to the 
 <f Former Argument for the Claufe^ and at 
 <f the fame time an Internal Chara&er againft 
 "it. But this Objection, as much as it 
 promifes, proves Nothing by Proving too 
 much. For if it concludes rightly againft 
 the tlattfe before us 3 it mull neceflarily 
 conclude much more ftrongly againft & 
 Tren^ra, an Undifputed Claufe extant in 
 all the Copies of the Creed ♦, that word 
 being plainly ufed of our Saviour more 
 than once in the New Teftament, whereas 
 the word Created is no where ufed of 
 
 Him* 
 
Forgery againft Athana/ius. 241 
 
 Him, but in a Falfe Tranflation of alFi* 
 gurarive Part of the OldTeiiament. The 
 Nicene Fathers in this Cafe fhewed them- 
 felves more Sollicitous for the Senfe than 
 the Words of Scripture, and that very 
 Wifely and Pioully j fmce Scripture Phrafes 
 may be, and too often have been, fo 
 wrefted and perverted, as to exprefs the 
 moft horrid Blafphemies. The Anthropo- 
 morphites had moft certainly the Words 
 of Scripture on their Side* but would 
 any man therefore Scruple to fay that 
 God is of an Incorporeal and Immaterial 
 Nature, and has neither Head, nor Face, 
 nor Eyes* nor Ears, nor Hands, nor 
 Fingers, nor any other of the Parts of 
 Human Bodies, which are Figuratively 
 afcribed to Him in Scripture? There are 
 many Expreflions ufed of our BlefTed Sa- 
 viour in Scripture either Figuratively, or 
 oixovofjiiKGs, with refpeft to his Incarnation 
 and Humanity, which cannot without the 
 greateft Blafphemy be Dogmatically arrirm- 
 ed of the Son of God in His Divine 
 Nature-, and would any Council be afraid 
 to anathematize thofe who could befo Im- 
 pious and A bfurd as to aflert, and there have 
 been Hereticks who have maintained No- 
 tions not lefs Impious and Abfurd, that 
 Our BlefTed Saviour was Really and Pro- 
 perly a Lamb, a Servant-, a Stone, a Star, 
 a Tree, a Well, ox a Worm as he is called 
 CL Tfalm. 
 
14 % dn dnfiver to the Charge of 
 
 Tfalm. xxii. 6. according to St. Jerom $ 
 and many other Writers ? We have feen 
 Hereticks, and I am afraid we fee them 
 every day, who deny the Divine Fore- 
 knowledge of Human A&ions > and fhould 
 any of thefe, amongft the many Mon- 
 ftrous Abfurdities which they run into for 
 fear of believing any thing againft Rea- 
 fon, deny that God knows any thing, and 
 make Ignorance one of His Attributes * 
 would it be Unlawful to condemn this 
 Blafphemy, becaufe to papr r5 5e5, the 
 Foolijhnefs of GOT), is an Expreffion ufed 
 in Scripture? But I am not at prefent con- 
 cerned to Defend the Council of Nice in 
 the Regard they have fhewn to the Doc- 
 trine of the Inf pired Writers, above their 
 Expreffions : it is fufficient for my purpofe 
 that this was really the Cafe 5 and that it 
 was fo, is plain from theClaufe VTWiQim. 
 
 X. THE Omiffion of this Claufe, upon 
 the Suppofition that it is Genuin, is much 
 more Eafy to be accounted for, than the 
 Interpolation, upon the Suppofition that 
 it is Spurious-, whether we fuppofe the 
 Omiffion or Interpolation to have been 
 Voluntary or Accidental. In the laftCafe 
 this is Univerfally true* a Carelefs and 
 Hafty Tranfcriber being much more likely 
 to leave out a word, than to infert one. 
 This, I fay, is True in the General No- 
 tion 5 and with refpeft to the Prefent 
 
 Omiffion 
 
Forgery againjl Athanadus. 245 
 
 Omiffion or Interpolation , it is farther 
 Probable from the Negligence of mod Eo 
 clefiaftical Writers, who leem to quote 
 Scripture and Creeds from their Memory 
 only. It is alio farther Probable from the 
 Great Number of other Omiilions in the 
 Copies of the Anathemas* which are al- 
 moft as Numerous as in the Creed it felf; 
 and particularly from the Omiflions and 
 Variations about the Place where the Claufe 
 fhould ftand, as I have already obferved. 
 And befides thefe Probabilities, Eufebius* 
 Ambroje, Epiphanius> Socrates, and Gelafius 
 aflureus, what Bafil and Rufinus gave us 
 Grounds to Sufpe£t,that the Claufe has been 
 dropt out of fome Copies where it Origi- 
 nally was ; there cannot therefore be any 
 Farther Difpute as to this Point, till you can 
 prove, that it has been inferted into fome 
 Copies where it Originally was not. 
 
 IT may be faid perhaps, that allowing this 
 to be True, though it has certainly been 
 dropt out of fome Copies, it is yet very 
 Strange and Unaccountable^ that it fhoula 
 be wanting in fo many. But againfl a 
 Reading eftabliflied by Proper Critical 
 Arguments, and all the Proofs which the 
 Nature of the thing will bear, it is Ridi- 
 culous to Objeft, that many MSS do not 
 acknowledge it j and irill more Ridiculous 
 to ExpeA a Certain Account how 
 it came to be omitted in thofe MSS. 
 
 CL* Why 
 
244 dn Anjaver to the Charge of 
 
 Why fhould it be fo Strange a thing, that 
 this Claufe fnould be wanting in many 
 Copies, and yet no Wonder at all, but 
 the Commoneft thing in the World, that 
 the True Reading fhould be found in the 
 fewefl Copies? And to give onelnftance 
 out of a Thoufand which might be brought, 
 Why is this Stranger than that the Doxo- 
 logy at the End of the Lord's Prayer 
 fhould be omitted in fo many of St. Mat- 
 thew's Copies, or the Eleven firft Verfes of 
 St. John's Eighth Chapter in fo many of 
 His Manufcripts? It would have been a 
 little Strange indeed, if all the Copies of the 
 Creed had been of the fame Age, and Tran- 
 icribed from one and the fame Copy : but 
 as the Cafe now (lands, the Wonder ceafes i 
 fince an Omiffion once made in one or 
 two Copies, might eafily fpread it felf 
 into a great many more. And after all, 
 this Objection bears as hard, nay much 
 harder, upon the other Side* fince fome 
 of the Witneffes I have produced, ex- 
 prefsly fay, that the Word Created was 
 Condemned, and Confequently that the 
 Difputed Claufe is an Auihentick Part of 
 the Anathemas \ whereas your Witneffes 
 are only Copies without the Claufe: And 
 as it is at lead as hard to account for the 
 Omiffion of it in thofe which have it not, 
 whilil we fuppofe it Genuin, as for the 
 Inferrion of it in thofe which have it, 
 
 whilft 
 
Forgery againjl Atlianafiiis. 245 
 
 wbilft we fuppofe it Spurious; fo it is rna- 
 nifeftly much more Eafy to account for 
 theOmiflion of a Genuin Claud* in many 
 Copies, than the Plain Atceitations of a 
 Few Witneffes to a Spurious Cliufe. 
 
 XI. IF this Interpolation or Ormilion 
 mud not be thought the Ef] eel of Chance, 
 but a Piece of Athanafian or Arian Kna- 
 very 3 even in that cafe the Corruption of 
 the Anathemas may with much better Rea- 
 fon be charged upon fome Arian , than 
 upon Athanajtus. We have aflurance 
 enough, that there were men amongir the 
 Avians , who would not (lick at fuch a 
 thing as thistoferve their Caufe* and that 
 too when the Service they Intended was 
 lefs, if it be poffible, than calling this 
 Claufe out of the Anathemas. Witnefs 
 thofe Honeft Bifhops, who met in Council 
 at Nice in Thrace, where they Tranllated 
 a Creed of their own into Greek, and gave 
 it out to be the Creed of the General 
 Council, which was held at Nice in Bi- 
 thynia-y hoping to deceive the Vulgar, t-J 
 7WL£c/s7t\y\<r\to TV ovofjixTwv, by the Similitude 
 of the Words Niwj and Nao/ct *• And we 
 learn from Sulpicius f and others, that fome 
 of them corrupted the Creed by turning 
 IfjLovoios into ofio.soiof. Thofe therefore, who 
 Counterfeited and Corrupted the Creed, 
 
 J Soz. 1. 1 v. c. 1 9. p. 462. f L. 1 1 . c. 40. p. x6f. 
 
 0.3 may 
 
24 6 An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 may with fome Reafon be fufpefted of 
 Corrupting the Anathemas ; where the 
 Crime was not Greater, and the Dete£tion 
 much more difficult: But what reafon have 
 we to believe any thing like this of Atha- 
 nafais? Is there any Example in Hiftory 
 of any fuch Forgery of His, to fupport 
 the Probability of this Imputation? Does 
 HisGeneral Character give us any Grounds 
 to think Him a Man Capable of doing or 
 approving of fo Villainous an A&ion? 
 
 BUT letting afide the Confideration of 
 His Integrity, which is as Notorious as His 
 Sufferings for it, there is yet another 
 Queftion.to be asked, and that a very Equi- 
 table one, Cut bono? What advantage could 
 He poffibly propofe to Himfelf or His 
 Caule, by adding a Word, which either 
 meant nothing at all, or was already con- 
 demned in the Expreflions which go be- 
 fore it in all the Copies of the Anathemas? 
 Suppofe the word was not at this Day 
 extant in any one Copy of thofe Ana- 
 themas, could the Athanajians have any 
 great Reafon to wifh it there? Would 
 they find any Want of it, whilft in the 
 Creed it felf our Saviour is faid to be 
 Very God of very God, Begotten not MAT>E^ 
 of one Subftance with the Father > and 
 whilft thofe are Anathematized, who pre- 
 fume to fay He was made out of nothing, 
 or that there was a titration when He 
 
 <wa$ 
 
Forgery againfl Athanafius. 247 
 
 was not ? And if there would be little 
 want of it now, there was rather leis 
 then, when the more Moderate Avians 
 took care to avoid that Expreilion; and 
 of this we have a very Remarkable In- 
 ftance in the Emperor Conftantius , who 
 would never endure to hear it, as Theo- 
 dovit often aflures us, and exprefsly com- 
 manded the Followers of Eudoxius to 
 condemn it, and anathematize thofe who 
 ufed it. Now if Athanafius did endea- 
 vour to make People believe, that the 
 word Created was Condemned by the 
 Council of Nice, he muft do it either 
 with no Defign at all, which cannot be 
 fuppofed of any man in his Senfes, or 
 with a Defign to deterr them from af- 
 firming that our Saviour was Created. 
 But He could not Forge this with a 
 Defign to deterr the Orthodox from af- 
 firming what even the more Moderate 
 Arians abhorred, nor yet with a Defign 
 to flop the Mouths of the more Violent 
 Avians by the Authority of a Council 
 which they contemned and defied. On 
 the other hand, if there were any Per- 
 fons, who believed our Saviour to be Un- 
 created, and that the word x*n£e« in the 
 <Provevbs meant nothing more than Pro- 
 duftion, and yet might be fo Scrupulous 
 as not to like the Condemnation of a 
 word ufed in Scripture, though in ano- 
 Q^4 the? 
 
2.48 An Anfaer to the Charge of 
 
 ther Senfe than that in which it was Con- 
 demned; thefe Men muft, in all Probabi- 
 lity) be offended and prejudiced againft 
 the Council upon that account. Athana- 
 Jius therefore could not but expeft more 
 Difadvantage than Advantage to theCaufe 
 of Orthodoxy from this Interpolation. 
 And to do fo Vile an Action in thefe Cir- 
 cumftancesj and upon fuch Motives, is fo 
 Senfelefs a Piece of Villainy <> that No Man 
 ought to be thought Capable of Doing it> 
 but he who can fuppofe it of Another. 
 
 BESIDES, if it be Certain that the 
 Council of Nice did not infert the Word 
 Created into theje Anathemas, could A- 
 thanafiiis have the leaft Grounds to hope* 
 that His Forgery would not be Difcovered, 
 at fo fmall aDiftance of Time, when there 
 were fo many True Copies extant* and in 
 the hands of thofe who were Continually 
 watching an Opportunity to ruin Him? 
 Muft it not Neceflarily have been the 
 mod Notorious Thing in the World, 
 that this Famous Orthodox Council durfi 
 not condemn the Principal Blafphemy of 
 Arius? Would not the Arians keep up 
 the Remembrance of it? by continually 
 prefling it upon their Adverfaries? Was 
 it poilible for Athanafius to hope, that, 
 though His Interpolated Copies fliould 
 have the Good Fortune to efcape Unob- 
 served for fome time, His Books* in which 
 
 he 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafms. 249 
 
 he feveral times direttly affirms that the 
 Council of Nice did condemn that word, 
 could fall into the hands of any Arian, 
 who would not be able to give Him 
 the Lye upon his own Certain Know- 
 ledge, if he was the lead acquainted with 
 the Controverfy ? And would a Man of 
 His Admirable "Parts and Senfe propagate 
 an Interpolation for the Interefl of His 
 Caufe, which could not but be Detected 
 immediately to the irreparable Damage 
 and Difgrace of Himfelf and His Caufe* 
 and which yet, if it ihould efcape De- 
 tection, would be of no Service to Him- 
 felf or HisCaufc, but rather the contrary? 
 Or if He could be fo Stupidly Wicked 
 Himfelf, as to Damn Himfelf with Deli- 
 beration for nothing; could He work up 
 an Aflembly of Bifliops to the fame Height 
 of Wickednefs and Stupidity? 
 
 AND farther, whatever you may think 
 of Athanajius's Heat and Obftinacy, which 
 were nothing but Zeal and Conftancy j He 
 has fufficiently fliewn Himfelf a Man of 
 truly Moderate and Comprehenjive Princi- 
 ples in the Difputes which arofe amon? 
 the Orthodox about &jw and <£zaw&m$i 
 and in the Declaration He makes m fa- 
 vour of thofc who could not approve 
 of the Word oficimo^ *. It is therefore In- 
 
 De Synodis p. 7//. 
 
 confiften c 
 
\$o An Afipwer to the Charge of 
 
 confident with His Character, to fuppofe 
 that He would Interpolate the Anathemas 
 to bring in a word, which, as I have al- 
 ready obferved, could not»gain over one 
 Arian to His fide, and might Probably give 
 Occafion of Scandal and Difguft to feveral 
 who would otherwife have joyned withHim. 
 TO this I fhall only add, that you have 
 brought an Argument to prove, that A- 
 thanafins made this Interpolation Volunta- 
 rily* which, in my Opinion, rather proves 
 that He made no Interpolation at all. Your 
 Argument is this : Athanafiuss very Church 
 of Alexandria's Copy had not this Inter- 
 polation> as we have feen-, fo that it is mo- 
 rally certain, that Athanajius was not un* 
 acquainted with the True Copy, and fo 
 certain, that this Interpolation of His 
 was Voluntary. But if At hanajius did not 
 Interpolate that Copy which of all others 
 He was mod likely to have Interpolated* 
 I think we may fairly conclude that He 
 Interpolated none. And that He fhould 
 Interpolate any Copy, and not that too 
 which belonged to His own Church, is 
 highly Improbable. Could He befo filly, 
 as to leave fo Authentick a Witnefs of His 
 Fraud in His own Archives-, where the 
 Bifliops of His Province, and the Clergy of 
 HisDiocefs might fo eafily and almoft Un- 
 avoidably difcover His Villainy? MuftHe 
 not forefee that the Confequence of fuch 
 
 a 
 
Forgery againft Athanafius. 251 
 
 aDifcovery would be His Certain Ruin? 
 Would He chufe to live in the Continual 
 Danger of being Deferted by thofe with- 
 out whofe fteddy Adherence He found He 
 could not fupport Himfelf, when it was 
 every day in His Power to eafe Himfelf 
 of thefe Terrible Apprehenfions? Would 
 not a man, whofe Ambition it was togive 
 Laws to the whole World) take all the 
 care He could that His own Clergy and 
 Countrymen fhould not DefpifeandDeteft 
 Him as a Notorious Villain ? Is it not 
 ftrange^ that none of His Subordinate 
 Clergy, none of his Suffragan Bifliops, 
 who had Frequent Occafions to come to 
 Alexandria^ and if they were Men of any 
 Learning or Curiofity, as certainly fome 
 of them at lead muft have been, could not 
 but fpend fome time among the Records 
 of that Antient Church; Is it notftrange, 
 I fay, that none of thefe fhould ever dis- 
 cover this Far^r/.? And if they did Difco- 
 ver it, is it not ftranger, that fo many of 
 them fhould ftand by Him fo Faithfully 
 in the Worfl of Times, and venture their 
 Lives in the Service of a Tyrannic aU Cheat** 
 ing Knave? But this only concerns you, 
 and thzt other. Judicious 'Perfon-* from whom 
 you received the fixing this Interpolation upon 
 Athanafius - y for we havefeen* that Atha- 
 nafius's very Church of Alexandria's Copy 
 had this Claufe. 
 
 XII. AND 
 
&5 * An Anpwer to the Charge of 
 
 XII. AND now Laftly I am to make good 
 my Promife, and Prove that the Council 
 it felf, in their Synodical Epifile, declare 
 that they had Condemned the word Creat- 
 ed: And if this can be Proved, every man, 
 I think, mufl own, that the Cafe is as 
 Clear to Him, as if he faw the Claufe with 
 his own Eyes in the Original Anathemas, 
 which the Fathers of that Council fub- 
 fcribed > unlefs it can be fuppofed that the 
 Whole Council could be Ignorant of 
 what the Whole Council had done, or at- 
 tempt to make the World believe that 
 they had Condemned an Expreffion, which 
 all the World muft foon know they had 
 not Condemned. 
 
 OF this Synodical Epiftle we have four 
 Copies extant, and thofe are mTheodorit, 
 Socrates, Gelajius, zndNicephorus. In the 
 Three Laft they affirm that they have ana- 
 thematized the Term Created or Creature. 
 In the Firft the Claufe where they fay fo 
 is omitted, as the Greek Text now ftands, 
 but retained in all theVerfionsIhavefeen, 
 except Camerarms's, and this encouraged me 
 to confult the Hiftoria Tripartita, colledt- 
 ed and Tranflated from $ocrates y Sozomen> 
 and Theodorit, in which the Compiler 
 tranferibes fometimes one and fometimes 
 another, Prefixing the Name of the Au- 
 thor from whom heTranfcribes, as we are 
 told in the Preface: Judicavimus de fingulis 
 
 ViZta- 
 
Fofgery againjl Athanafius. 255 
 
 T)i£tatoribus deflorata colligere, & cum 
 Auttoris fiti nomine in Ordinem collocate. 
 And in this Hijlory there is a Copy of the 
 Synodical Epijlle with the abovemen- 
 tioned Claufe in its proper place, as in 
 the other Three > and Theodorifs Name 
 is fet before it 5 which, in my Opini- 
 on, is a very fubftantial Proof, that the 
 Claufe was in that Copy of Theodorit 
 which Epiphanius Scholajlicus made ufe of, 
 about 50 Years after Theodoras Death » 
 an Age, which I believe, no MS of that 
 Author now extant can pretend to come 
 nigh. And if the Claufe was in Epipha- 
 nius's Copy of Theodorit > I think we may 
 very reafonably conclude, that it was Ori- 
 ginally in that Copy of the Synodical E- 
 piflle, which Theodorit publifhed* fince it 
 is Infinitely more Probable that it wasO- 
 riginally there, and afterwards dropt, in 
 fo Long a Tract of Time, and in the 
 Courfe of fo many Tranfcriptions, than 
 that it was Originally not there, and yec 
 inferted fo very Early. What Weight 
 this Argument will have with you in the 
 Prefent Cafe, I cannot pretend to guefs : 
 but this I will venture to fay, that in any 
 Parallel Cafe of Criticifm, where there is 
 no room for Prejudice, you, and all Men 
 ofSenfe, mult readily agree, that the True 
 Reading of a Record prefer ved in any 
 Hiftory is that which the mod Antienc 
 
 MS 
 
2-54 ^ n d&piv& & the Charge of 
 
 MS of that Hiftory acknowledges, and all 
 the other Hiftorians in their Copies of the 
 fame Record unanimoufly retain. It ap- 
 pears therefore, that in all the Copies of 
 the Synodical Epiftle now extant there is, 
 or Originally was, a Claufe, in which the 
 Whole Council allures us, that the Term 
 Created was Condemned. And after all, if 
 we fhouldnotinfift upon Theodorit'sTctti- 
 monyi there would yet be Three Copies 
 againft One, Three Pofitive WitnefTes a- 
 gainft One Negative ; a Difparity Great 
 enough of it felf to determine a Difpute 
 of this Nature, where no Internal Cha- 
 ra&er can be pretended on the other fide. 
 One of the Three indeed is too Modern 
 to be of any Great Authority : but even 
 he alone, notwithftanding this Difadvan- 
 tage in the Point of Age, may be fafely 
 oppofed to Theodorit in the Prefent 
 State of the Cafe; fince the Argument 
 drawn from Epiphaniws Translation, 
 though it ihould not be thought ftrong e- 
 nough to prove Theodorit a Witnefs for 
 this Claufe in the Synodical Epiftle, muft 
 yet, in its Leaft Force, be allowed to prove, 
 that, as a Witnefs againft it, his E- 
 vidence is very Uncertain and Precarious. 
 And the other Two are Unexceptionable, 
 your old Objection of Tranfcribing from 
 Athanafitis being here entirely Precluded -, 
 iince Athanafius has no where given us 
 any Copy of this Epiftle.^ BUT 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 255 
 
 BUT to make the Cafe (till Clearer, if 
 pofllble, I (hall propofe and examine all 
 theObje&ions, which can be railed againft 
 this Decifive Teftimony by the mod Capti- 
 ous and Difingenuous Adverfary. And in 
 the firft place it may perhaps be Objected, 
 That the word x.rt<m is not faid to have 
 been anathematized, but x/no^aj that the 
 word TFoUfML is joyned with it, which 
 yet we find in no Copy of the Anathe- 
 matifms-, and that the words «uri£an£- 
 thti y&AoL$ *, kgnris Stxkxcv are alfo faid 
 to have (hared the fame Fate, though 
 we have not one Syllable of them in any 
 Copy of the Anathemas now extant % 
 whence it neceflarily follows, that the 
 Council did not deiign to give the very 
 words, which they had condemned, but 
 only the Senfe* and confequently, that 
 the 'Dijputed Claufe cannot be proved 
 Genuin from the Infertion of the word 
 KiicpLOL in this place, fince it is agreed, 
 that all which can be meant by x/ncoca 
 or Kmqiv is condemned in the other Ana- 
 thematized Expreflions, which are allow- 
 ed to be Genuin. Thefe Objections I 
 have put together into One, becaufe they 
 agree in the fame Particular Conclufion, 
 and will be removed at once by the fame 
 Anfwer, which 1 (hall give as briefly as 
 I can, after I have let down the Paifage 
 from which they are drawn. K^ mp-i*fP*\ 
 
256 An Anjhver to the Charge of 
 
 g'Jo£ev hcL^ifixU^mocj rtw cLos&yi cturS £&%&, ^ 
 
 i*zX%$ ^oLacpvffJLaVf t Ifrt t5 }-e5 Ae>o>y g£ QOg 
 IV rev, $ ei^ocf rmrt era Qf?c W" 59 oLUTi^BcnoTnU, 
 
 fii^KTev y\ kyioL cuvofos *. Thefe are the 
 Words of the Council in their Synodical 
 Epiftle, and the Queftion is, whether the 
 fmall Inaccuracy (hewn in putting aw/** 
 for KTiqov, in placing Wi^ amongft the 
 Anathematized Exprefllons, whereas it was 
 only Condemned in the Creed, and in 
 Paraph rafing t$l7c\qv v\ iMowroy by auTE^acno- 
 tjitz kclkIcls $ iggTw* <TfcxItx.ovj be fufficient to 
 prove, that the Council meant nothing 
 more than that they had Condemned the 
 Senfe and Notion of the Term Created ex- 
 prefled in the other Condemned Phrafes. 
 And this being the State of the Queftion, 
 I am to maintain it in the Negative, which, 
 1 think, will Clearly appear to be True 
 from the following Reafons. 1. The only 
 Condemned Expreilions omitted in this Ac- 
 count, which the Council gives us of their 
 Anathematifms, are ird» ywy$w<*J{ W w, and 
 e£ Mgw 'xjzxogvL'Jiw yi vgiols, and the firft of 
 thefe is retained in Theodorifs Copy of this 
 Epiftle; and though both of them may be 
 affirmed of any Created Being, yet neither of 
 them contains any thing like the Notion and 
 
 ~~* Ap. Soc. L.i. c.9. p. 23. 
 
 Defi* 
 
Forgery againfl Athinafius. 257 
 
 Definition of Creation. And wwrg oit £* Wi 
 and g£ era oVrai/, which do really contain 
 the Notion of a Created Being, are ex- 
 prefsly mentioned in this Account before 
 KTHrfjLaL. Now when the Council added 
 the word kim/m after thefe and the ochcr 
 Condemned Expreflions, they either meant 
 to make their Readers believe by it, that 
 they had condemned another word befides 
 thole which went before, or another No- 
 tion only, or this Claufe is a Stupid Tau- 
 tology without any Defign or Mean- 
 ing at all. If they meant to make their 
 Readers believe they had condemned 
 another word , the Point 1 contend for 
 is gained, and the Contrary Argument falls 
 to the Ground. And they could not mean 
 to make their Readers believe they had 
 Condemned a Notion not mentioned a$ 
 Condemned before; for they had men- 
 tioned two Expreflions, in which the No- 
 tion of Creation is fully Condemned. It 
 remains therefore, that it is a NecefTary 
 Confequence from the Suppofition againfl: 
 which I am arguing, that this Claufe in 
 the Synodical Epiftle is a Stupid Tauto- 
 logy without any Defign or Meaning. 
 And as this Confequence is Abfurd enough 
 to (hew the Falfchood of any Aflertion, 
 from which it follows; fo in the Prefent 
 Cafe Particularly it is of Double Force 
 againft the Argument I am now Examin- 
 
 R ins 
 
ij 8 An Anpwer to the Charge of 
 
 ing, which has all its Strength from the 
 Appearance of a fmall Inaccuracy on the 
 other hand, and, to avoid it, runs us in- 
 to the Supposition of a Greater. 2. It is 
 a Point agreed upon betwixt us, and Evi- 
 dently True in it (elf, that if the Council 
 of Nice did not condemn the Term Created, 
 it could be for no other Reafon but be- 
 cauie they durft not. And if they would 
 have anathematized it, if they durft-, it 
 is plain, that they did, if they durft. But 
 if they durft call it Blafphemous, they 
 durft anathematize it, and forbid the Ufe 
 of it. And in this very Paflage they reckon 
 it among the rk pj/*am ^ tu ovouol^c to. /2Act<7- 
 <P?iuql. Therefore they durft condemn it. 
 Therefore they did. 3. If the Council of 
 Nice did not condemn the Term Created^ 
 the fame Principle of Conference, which 
 reftrained them from Condemning it, muft 
 alfo have reftrained them from fpeaking 
 of it, as they do here, in fuch a manner, 
 that it was not poflible for them to have 
 notified the Condemnation of it more 
 clearly and exprefsly, if they really had 
 Condemned it. And to fuppofe that they 
 durft endeavour to make the World be- 
 lieve, that they had Condemned a word, 
 which they durft not Condemn, is very Ab- 
 iurd andlnconfiftent j and can only be the 
 Laft Refuge of a Pcrverfe Difputant, who 
 can believe an Aflembly of 300 Primitive 
 
 Bifliops 
 
Forgery dgainfl Athanaiius. 255? 
 
 Bilhops to have been Honed and Con- 
 fcientious one Minute , and Knaves and 
 Villains the next, juft as it ierves his pre- 
 fentPurpofc, rather than give up a Darling 
 Hypothesis. And if you, who have taken 
 fo much Pains fomctimcs to Vindicate , 
 and fomerimes to abufe the Council of 
 Nice> can entertain this Opinion of them j 
 I dare venture to aflurc you, for your Sa- 
 tisfaction, that you will be as Singular in 
 it as your heaFt can wifh. 
 
 BESIDES thefe, the only Objection 
 which I think can poftibly be made, is* 
 That of all the Anathematized Expref- 
 fions jcnc^a is mentioned lad: in this Ac- 
 count, and after the Paraphrafe of 7%nt- 
 T09 yi kfaoiwTDv. There is therefore little 
 c reafon to doubt but this Claufe in the 
 Synodical Epiflle is no better than Atha- 
 nafian Interpolation and Forgery alfo \ 
 r efpecially fince the Period is Full and 
 " Compleat without it. But the Fullnefs 
 of the Period without it is no Argument 
 againft it; for if you break off at V*, 
 the Period is Full ; if you break of higher 
 at fchio-tpyfia, the Period is (till Full. And 
 the Place in which it (lands can be no Ar- 
 gument againft it, whilft the fir ft Arian 
 Expreflion mentioned in this Account is 
 the third in the Anathematilms, and the 
 firft in the Anathematifms is the Se- 
 cond here. On the contrary, it is much 
 R 2 rather 
 
%6o An Anfwer to the Charge of 
 
 rather an Argument in its favour ; for an 
 Interpolator if he had not as little Senfc 
 as Honefty, would moft Certainly have 
 inferted it in its proper Place. 
 
 UPON the whole matter, The Copies, 
 in which this Claufe of the Anathemas is 
 omitted, are generally very Faulty, and 
 omit many other Words as well as thofe 
 before us> particularly in the Anathemas : 
 The Copies which acknowledge it are much 
 more Correct, more Antient, and taken 
 at fewer Removes from the Original. The 
 Witneffes againft it are only thofe Inaccu- 
 rate Copies which omit it: The Witneffes 
 for it are not only the Copies which retain 
 it, but alfo feveral Authors who Intimate, 
 and others who diredtly affirm, that the 
 Term Created was Condemned. The 
 JVitneffes againft it are Negative, Fewer, 
 more Modern, Inconfiftent with one ano- 
 ther,andoften with themfelves,moft of them 
 Convicted of giving Falfe Evidence againft 
 other Words which are Indifputably Ge- 
 nuin, and not one of them prefent where 
 the Scene of the Difputed Fa£fc is* laid : 
 The Witneffes for it are Pofitive, more in 
 number, more Antient, more Subftantiah 
 more Authenticity agree in Their Teftimo- 
 ny, and two of them Prefent at theCoun- 
 cil. For the Claufe there are feveral In- 
 ternal 
 
Forgery againjl Athanafius. 26 1 
 
 ternal Chara&ers y againft it None. The 
 Accidental Omiilion of it is much more 
 Eafy to be accounted for, than the Acci- 
 dental Infertion of it. The Voluntary O- 
 miffion of it may alfo Eafily be accounted 
 for, by Charging it upon the Arians, for 
 which we have very Good Grounds from 
 Hiftoryj fince they who Counterfeited 
 and Corrupted the Creed it felf, with fo 
 little Profpect of any Real Advantage to 
 their Caufe from it, and the Abfolutelm- 
 pofllbility of efcaping undifcovered, could 
 not, upon any Principle of Confcienceor 
 Caution, fcruple to corrupt the Anathe- 
 mas: The Voluntary Infertion of it can- 
 not be accounted for by charging it upon 
 Athanafius \ as you have done-, fince we 
 have no Reafon, from His Character or 
 Hiftory, to fuppofe Him Capable of fa 
 Bafe an A&ion, and very Good Grounds 
 from both to believe the Contrary y fince 
 He could not propofe any Poffible Ad- 
 vantage to Himfelf or His Caufe from it, 
 nor hope to deterr any man from ufing 
 that Expreffion by this Interpolation, the 
 Orthodox and Moderate Arians abftain- 
 ing from it already, and that the more 
 Violent Arians would do any thing out of 
 Deference to the Authority of aCouncil they 
 defied, no man in his Wits could Imagine; 
 fince on the contrary He had more rea- 
 fon to expeft, that the Infertion of this 
 R 3 Claufe 
 
i6z An Anfvjer to the Charge of 
 
 Claufe would prejudice fome againft the 
 Council, than reconcile any to it or its 
 Do&rines fince a Man of His Admirable 
 Tarts cannot be fuppofed fo Egregioufly 
 Rupid, as toTrofiagate an Interpolation for 
 the Intereft of His Caufe, which could not 
 be of any Service to His Caufe, and muft 
 alfo foon be Detefted by His Vigilant E- 
 riemies to the Irreparable Damage and Dif- 
 grace of Himfelf and His Caufe; and 
 fince, though all this could be fuppofed of 
 Athanafiusi yet no man can be fo Uncha- 
 ritable and Abfurd as to fuppofe it of a 
 whole Afiembly of Bifhops, who joyned 
 with Him in Propagating this Claufe, 
 but he who could be fo Foolifhly Wicked, 
 as to be guilty of fuch a fenfelefs Piece of 
 Villainy himfelf. And laftly, which alone, 
 till it is Difproved, muft for ever filence 
 thisDifpute, we have theExprefs Tefiimo- 
 ny of the Council \t fclf that the Term Created 
 was Anathematized. 
 
 AND now I think 1 may be allowed to 
 fay, that no Reading, which is not either 
 Acknowledged by all the Copies, or Ab- 
 folutely Neceflary to the Senfe and Con- 
 ftru£tion, can well beeftabliflied uponfurer 
 Grounds than this Claufe of the Anathe- 
 mas. Your Second Proportion therefore 
 being thus fo plainly refuted, the Thirds 
 which depends entirely upon it, muft 
 fall of Courfe without any farther 
 
 Trouble 
 
Forgery againji Athanafius. 165 
 
 Trouble: and yet if you expeft that 
 This too ihould be a little conjidered, 
 you may find perhaps that in one of the 
 Obfervations upon your Firfi Tropqfition> 
 and theXIth Argument againft your Second* 
 I have Occafionally faid enough to fhew, 
 that you have drawn a Precarious, Un- 
 neceuary, andAbfurd Confequence from 
 a Falfe Aflumption. 
 
 / am, SIR, 
 
 With all "Due Refpefi, 
 Tourmoft Humble Servant \ 
 
 STYAN THIRLBY. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 IT may perhaps be expected , that I 
 fliould fay fomething here of a Little 
 book, which was Publifhed whilft thefe 
 Papers were in the Prefs, with the Title 
 of Calumny no Conviction , in Anfwer ta 
 your Letter. But though I cannot think 
 my felf fo Bafe, as to be Capable of any 
 thing like Ingratitude } I muft own I find 
 very Little Inclination in my felf to pay 
 the Acknowledgements, which I owe to 
 the Anonymous Author of that Piece. 
 For, to confefs the Truth of the Cafe, 
 that Learned Gentleman has been fo very 
 Exceffive in His Civilities, that I cannot 
 eafily make a Warm and Suitable Return, 
 without the Danger of being thought fo 
 Weak, as to be pleafed with Undeferved 
 Praife. Ocher men may, and will, fay, 
 The Judicious Author of Calumny no Con- 
 viction: but in me, it might perhaps be 
 conftrued rather Vanity, than Gratitude. 
 1 muft therefore leave the Commendations 
 He fo juftly defer ves to thofe, who can 
 Commend Htm w r ith lefs Envy to them- 
 fclves, and much more Credit to Him. 
 But whatever imputations 1 may lay my 
 felf open to by it, as I had much rather 
 be, or be thought, Vain than Ungratefull, 
 
 1 can 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I cannot excufc my fclf from thankfully 
 acknowledging the Great Honour, which 
 this Ingenious Gentleman has done inc. 
 And if any man be fo Sour as to think, 
 that even by this Poor Acknowledgement 
 I do in effect take to my fclf the Applaufc 
 which 1 cannot pretend to deferve-, I (hall 
 have the Satisfaction to fee him fnew not 
 lefs Ignorance than III Nature, in Abfurd- 
 ly Concluding, that a man takes a thing 
 as his Due, becaufe he receives it thank- 
 fully as a Favour. In one thing indeed my 
 Generous Advocate might have obliged 
 me farther, and that is by publifhing 
 His Book fooner ^ for though He has 
 not Anticipated me in many Points, 
 yet it would have furnifhed me with 
 a very Good Anfwer to the Argu- 
 ments and Importunity of my Friends, 
 which have extorted from me the fore- 
 going unpolifhed Sheets. As they are, I 
 have given them up to the Repeated Re- 
 queft of thofe, whom I ought not to have 
 fuffered to have asked any thing of me 
 twice ; and if I have obliged them at the 
 Expence of my Reputation, I fhall com- 
 fort my felf, under the Lofs of it, by the 
 Principle to which I havefacrificed it. Not 
 but that 1 fhould be glad to fliew the Re- 
 gard I pay to their Commands at a Cheap- 
 er Rate j a Man may be willing to venture 
 his Life in the Service of his Friend, and 
 
 yet 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 yet very willing to come off Alive: And 
 though lam nor, fo far as I know my felf, of 
 the Number of thofe who can fatten upon 
 Praife, and grow Lean upon the Difap- 
 pointment of it, I am not fo Proud as to 
 defpife the Cenfure of the Tublick; Nei- 
 ther am I afhamed to beg the Continuance 
 of the fame Favour and Indulgence, which 
 the Inequality of the Combat procured 
 for my former Book againft you. In this, 
 what Reafon I may have to expe£t it, 
 I cannot tell ; but 1 fear I have but too 
 much Reafon to defire it. The Subje&of 
 the Grcateft Part of it is Dry and Unplea- 
 fant in its own Nature, fo as fcarce to ad- 
 mit of any Ornament, or any thing which 
 might be thrown in to enliven a Dull Scene: 
 It is alfo perfefrlyNew and Unbeaten, and, 
 if your word may betaken for it, entirely 
 givenupbyfome of the moft Learned Men 
 in the Nation-, and yet in thefe Circum- 
 ftances I have had the Hardinefs, Alone, and 
 without any the lead Afliftance, to engage 
 with three Learned and Judicious Adver- 
 saries. But that which gives me the 
 greateft Occafion to lay in my Petition for 
 Excufe and Candour, is the Neceflity I 
 was under of fending almoft two thirds 
 of thefe Papers to the Prefs as faft as I 
 could write them; fo many were the 
 New Obfervations which occurred to 
 me upon the Review of the whole Cafe. 
 
 Upon 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Upon thefe Accounts 1 flatter my (elf with 
 the Hopes of fome Allowances for any 
 Miftakes or Marks of Haft, which may 
 be Obferved either in the Argument, or 
 the Method, or the Style of this Letter; 
 and the rather becaufe this is Likely to 
 be the Laft Time that I fhall trouble you 
 or the World with any Amufements about 
 the Honefty of Athanajius, or any thing 
 elfc. But I would not have you mifun- 
 derftand me ; This Requeft I make to 
 thofe only, who are to be the Judges 
 betwixt us : From you I neither cxpecT: 
 nor defire any Favour in this kind-, 
 but only thar, if you fliall think fie 
 once more to return me a Repe- 
 tition inftead of a Reply, you would 
 be fo kind as to hold me Excufed from 
 any Farther Correfpondence with you, 
 which may not be carried on by the 
 Poft. And fo, Sir, I humbly take my 
 Leave of you and the Tublicky in the 
 Quality of an Author. 
 
 THE ENT>. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 P. 4f. 1. 16, r. He does not only /peak as if there were one 
 "Divinity in all the three Terfons, as you afterwards endeavour 
 to bring your felf offj but expreffly affirms that the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghofr are One God. P. 118. N°.6. d. Car.i. 
 7. 1 33. No. 29. inf. Sedet ad dexter am Patris, indeCax. 3. 
 
BOOKS Printed for and Sold by Cornelius 
 Crowmfield^/^ University- Press 
 in Cambridge. 
 
 SUidx Lexicon, Grxce & Latinc. Textum Gra> 
 cum cum Manufcriptis Codicibus collatum a 
 quamplurimis mcndis purgavit, Notifque pcrpetuis 
 illuftravit: Vcrfioncm Latinam JEmili Porti innu- 
 mcris in locis correxit ; Indicefque Au&orum & 
 Rcrum adjccit Ludolphus Kuftcmsy Profeflbr huma- 
 niorum literarum in Gymnafio Regio Berolinenfl. 
 FoLoy 17 10. 
 
 Q. Horatius Flaccus, ex Recenfione & cum No- 
 tis atque Emendationibus Richardi Bentleiiy Quarto, 
 1711. 
 
 Philofophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. 
 Auctore Ifaaco Newtonoy Equite Aurato. Editio 
 Secunda Au&ior & Emendatior. Quarto, 171$. 
 
 C. Crifpi Salluftii quae extant ; cum Notis Inte- 
 gris Glareani, Rivii, Ciacconii, Gruteri, Carrionis, 
 Manutii, Putfchii, Doufae; Sele&is Caftilionei, 
 C. & A. Popmae, Palmerii, Urfini> J. Fr. Grono- 
 vii, Viclorii, &c. Accedunt Julius Exfuperantius, 
 Porcius Latro; & Fragmcnta Hiftoricorum Vett. cum 
 Notis A. Popmae. Recenfuit, Notas perpetuas, & In- 
 dices adjecit Jofephus Wajfe> Coll. Regin. apud Can- 
 tib. Socius ; & Nobiliff. Marchioni de Kent a Sa- 
 cris Domefticis. Praemittitur Salluftii Vita, Au&ore, 
 V. CI. Joanne Clerico. Quarto, 17 10. 
 
 C. Julii Caefaris quae exftant Omnia. Ex Re- 
 cenfione Joannis Davifiiy Coll. Regin. Cantab. Socii, 
 cum ejufdem Animadverfionibus ac Notis Pet. Ciac- 
 conii, Fr. Hotomanni, Joan. Brantii, Dionyf. Voflii 
 & aliorum. Acceffere Metaphrafis Graeca Libro- 
 rum vn. De Bello Gallico, nee non Indices necef- 
 farii. OuartQy 170^. 
 
 Remark} 
 
Remarks upon a late Difionrfe of Free*7%mfytg : In 
 a Letter to F. H. D.D. by Phileleutherus Lipfienfis. 
 Part the Firfty the Third Edition ; and Part the Secvnd, 
 the Second Edition, O&avo, 17 1 4. 
 
 V. GL Andreae Tacquet Soc. Jefu Sacerdotis & 
 Mathefea>s ProfefToris Elementa Geometriae Plans ac 
 Solidae; & Sele&a ex Archimede Theoremata. Ac- 
 cedunt Corollaria non pauca illuftrandis Elementis 
 accomodata, & .varios propofitionum plurimarum 
 Urns continentia. Summa cura emendata, & XL 
 Schematibus novis a?ri incifis illuftrata. A Gulielmo 
 Whi(tcn> A.M. Mathefe<»s Profeffore Lucafiano apud 
 Cantabrigienfes. Editio Secunda, aliquanto auctior, 
 & emendatior. OUavo y 17 10. 
 
 Bernhardi Varenii Geographia Generalis, in qua 
 afFediones generaks Telluris explicantur. Adje&a 
 eft Appendix, praecipua Recentiorum inventa ad 
 Geographiam fpectantia continens, A Jacobo Jurin, 
 A. M. Collegii S. Trinitatis Socio, & Scholae Pub- 
 lics Novocaftrenfis Archididafcalo. Oclavo, 171 2. 
 
 Emendationes in Menandri & Philemonis Reli- 
 quias, ex nupera Editione Joannis Clerici: Ubi multa 
 Grotii & aliorum, plurima vero Clerici errata cafti- 
 gantur. Auftore Phileleuthero Lipjienji. Scriptae Anno 
 mdccx. Accedit Epiftola Critica Richardi Bentleii 
 de Joanne Malela Antiocheno ,• Scripta Anno 
 mdcxci. Editio Altera Emendatior. Oclavo , 
 1713. 
 
 Q. Horatius Flaccus ad nuperam Richardi Bentleii 
 Editionem accurate expreflus. Notas addidit Thomas 
 BemleittSi A. B. Collegii S. Trinitatis apud Canta- 
 brigienfes Alumnus. Oclavo, 171 3. 
 
 M. Minucii Felicis O&avius, ex iterata Recen- 
 fione Joannis Davifih LL. D. Coll. Regin. Cantab. 
 Sociij cum ejufdem Animadverfionibus, ac Notis 
 Tntegris DzL Heraldi & Nic. Rigaltii, nee non Se- 
 
 ledis 
 
le&is aliorum, AccedK Commodianus, /Km Cy- 
 prianici Scriptor, cum Obfervationibus aotehac Jid:- 
 tis, aliifquc nonnullis, qux jam primura prodeunr. 
 
 Ottavoy 1 71 2. 
 
 ®io<P£pr* Xcl&lxtyi£c$ RJiyjoI. Thcophrafti 
 Chara&eres Ethici. Graece & Latine. Cum Notis 
 ac Emendationibus Ifaaci Cafauboni & Aliorum. 
 Acccdunt Jacobi Duporti Prade&iones jam primum 
 Edita?. Graeca cum vetuftiflimis MSS. collata rc- 
 cenfuit, & Notas adje'cit* Peu Ncedham> S. T. B* 
 Coll. Div. Johan. Cantab. Socius. Ottavo, 171 5. 
 
 Hieroclis Philofophi Alcxandri Commentarius in 
 Aurea Carmina, de Providentia & Fato qua? fuper- 
 funt, 8c reliqua Fragmenta. Grxce 8c Latine. 
 Gra?ca cum MSS. collata caftigavit, Verfionem re- 
 cenfuit, Notas & Indicem adjecit Pet. Needbam* 
 S. T. B. Coll. D. Joannis Cantab. Socius. Ottavo* 
 1715. 
 
 Balthafaris Caftilionis Comitis Libri iv. De Cu- 
 riali five Aulico ex Italico Sermone in Latinum con- 
 verfi Intcrprete Bartholomaeo Clarke. Reccnfuit 
 Samuel Drake-, A. M. Coll. Div. Joh. Cantab. Socius. 
 -OElavo, 171 3. 
 
 Lexicon Novi Teitamenti Alphabeticum, nunc 
 primum plene editum: Continens omnes Voces tarn 
 Primitivas quam Derivativas, Anomalas atque Com- 
 munes, in facro Textu occurrentes; cum earum Re- 
 folutione Grammatica. In Ufum Scholarium. Studio 
 8c Labore Joan. Dawfon^ A. B. Ollavo^ 170(0. 
 
 Publii Virgilii Maronis Bucolica, Georgica, 8c 
 JEncis- Ad optimorum Exemplarium fidem recen- 
 fita. Editio Altera. 12 . 171 1. 
 
 Publii Terentii Afri Comcedias ad optimorum 
 Exemplarium fidem recenfita?. AccefTerunt Varia; 
 Lectiones, quae in Libris MSS. 8c Eruditorum Coni- 
 mentariis notatu dignjorcs occurrunt. Editio Altera. 
 ia°. 1701, 
 


 m 
 
■ 
 
 r 
 
 Ml 
 
 
 f 
 
 W 
 
 
 iWJ. 
 
 ■? - : &&i 
 
 \ ■'/""' 
 
 / ; 
 
 
 fei 
 
 \ 1 
 
 i^i 
 
 wU 
 
 1 1 1 ' v ' ■ I 
 
 
 B^f 
 
 \kfz& 1 
 
 ■ 'r^Pi 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 .8*