A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

St. ATHANASIUS.

ST. Athanasius was born at Alexandria a 1.1, but the precise Year of his Birth is not certainly known, neither do the Ancients tell us any thing of his Kindred b 1.2. He was so young during the Persecu∣tion * 1.3 of Dioclesian and Maximian, that when he speaks of it, he does not say, that he had seen what he says, but only that he learn'd it of his Fathers c 1.4. We know nothing either of his Infancy, or Edu∣cation. Ruffinus, indeed, tells us, That St. Athanasius being yet a Child, and playing with other Chil∣dren, imitated the Ceremonies of the Church, and baptiz'd his Comrades; and that St. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, perceiving it, and having enquir'd the manner in which they were baptiz'd, he approv'd the Baptism, and from that time, design'd St. Athanasius for the Clergy. But this Story, which, besides its being so very improbable, cannot agree with the Age of St. Athanasius, passes among Learned Men, rather for a Fable than a Truth d 1.5. St. Gregory Nazianzen, assures us, in his Panegy∣rick on St. Athanasius, that this Saint applied himself but a short while to the profane Sciences, and proceeded quickly to the Study of the Holy Scriptures. Afterwards he entred into the Clergy, and discharg'd his Function, when he was in Orders, with general Approbation, according to the Obser∣vation of Theodoret. He was particularly taken Notice of by Alexander his Bishop, whom he accom∣panied to the Council of Nice, being then but a Deacon, and yet the first of the Deacons of his Church. He oppos'd there the Heresy of Arius, and 'tis believ'd likewise, that he maintain'd a Disputation against the Hereticks. When he return'd again to the City of Alexandria, Alexander cast his Eyes upon him to make him his Successor. Apollinarius, says, in a Passage related by Sozomen, B. II. Ch. 17. of his History, That St. Athanasius fled to avoid being chosen Bishop, and that Alexander being near his Death, did several times call for him. After the Death of this Bishop, he was chosen Bishop of Alexandria, in the beginning of the Year 326 e 1.6, by the common Voice of all the People, and ordain'd by the Bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis assembled in the City of Alexandria. This is the Testimony which the Bishops of these Provinces give of his Ordination in a Synodical Letter reported by St. Athanasius, Apol. 2. p. 726. where at the same time they refute the Calumny of the Arians, who said, That Athanasius was pri∣vately Ordain'd by seven Bishops against the Will of all the rest. The Arians and the Bishops which Patroniz'd them assoon as they saw St. Athanasius their Adversary promoted to this See, look'd upon this Promotion as a great Obstacle to their Designs, and therefore resolv'd to drive him out of the Church. And that they might execute this Design the more easily, they join'd with the Schismaticks call'd Meletians, (or rather Melitians f 1.7) because they had follow'd the Party of an Egyptian Bishop call'd Meletius or Melitius, who being depos'd in a Synod by Peter of Alexandria, for having Sacrific'd to Idols g 1.8, separated himself from the Church, and made a considerable Faction in Egypt.

Thus the Bishops that favour'd Arius, not being able to persuade St. Athanasius to receive him into his Communion, no more than his followers, tho' Eusebius had written him a threatning Letter to that purpose, did for that reason accuse him of laying a New Tax upon all the Linen or Woollen Vest∣ments of the Egyptians, for the use of the Church of Alexandria; and deputed Ision, Eudemon, and Callinicus, Melitian Bishops, to carry this Accusation to the Emperour. But Alipius and Macarius, Priests of Alexandria, being then at Court when this Accusation was brought against St. Athanasius, defended him, and demonstrated his Innocence to the Emperour Constantine, who thereupon wrote to Athanasius to come and appear before him. At that time Eusebius of Nicomedia, being resolv'd at any rate to ruin St. Athanasius at Court, caus'd these three Informers to stay there, who invented new Ac∣cusations, alledging that the Priest Macarius had broken a Sacred Chalice by Athanasius's Order, and that Athanasius himself had conspir'd against the Emperour, by sending a Chest full of Gold to Philumenus who design'd to Usurp the Empire. But the Emperour himself having examin'd this Ac∣cusation in one of their Suburbs of Nicomedia, call'd Psammathie, declar'd St. Athanasius Innocent of those Crimes, and sent him back to Alexandria with a very obliging Letter in his favour. This was done in the Year 331. The Enemies of St. Athanasius not resting satisfied with this Judgment, the next Year renew'd the Accusation of the Chalice broken by Macarius, founded upon the Deposition of one Ischyras who call'd himself a Priest, altho' he was ordain'd by Collythus, who was not truly a Bishop, and therefore had not Power to give him a valid Ordination. Ischyras had dwelt at Mareo∣tis, a Country of Egypt, where there was neither Bishop nor Suffragan, but only a great many Pa∣rishes govern'd by Priests. He had one of these Churches, which Athanasius understanding, sent Macarius to forbid him when he visited his Diocess, to Celebrate the Divine Mysteries, and to exe∣cute any part of the Sacerdotal Function. This gave the occasion of accusing Macarius, that he had broken one of the Sacred Chalices, altho' he found Ischyras out of the Church and in his Bed. But to render St. Athanasius more odious, they accuse him of having put Arsenius to Death, who was Bi∣shop of Hipsele in Thebais, and of the Faction of the Melitians. The Emperour who had already examin'd the first Accusation, (which was likewise confounded by the Letter of Ischyras, who acknow∣ledg'd, that he was forc'd to invent this Calumny,) did not take any further notice of that Article, but wrote to Dalmatius, to enquire into the second Accusation, concerning the Murder of Arsenius. This oblig'd St. Athanasius to search every where for this Bishop whom the Melitians had hid in the Monasteries at their Devotion: And at last, he was found at Tyre where he was made known before Paul the Bishop. Then, St. Athanasius having given notice to Constantine, that his Accusers were con∣victed of an Imposture, the Emperour wrote to Dalmatius, to stop all further Process, and sent a very obliging Letter to St. Athanasius, wherein he exhorts him to moderation, condemns the Rage of the Melitians, and promises him Protection. But for all this, the Arian Faction lost not their Cou∣rage, nor did they cease to contrive still new Accusations against him: Whereupon the Emperour be∣ing tormented with their continual Importunity, thought fit to call a Council, to put an end to all these Differences; which he order'd to meet at Caesarea, in Palaestine, where St. Athanasius was Sum∣mon'd to appear. But this Saint, perceiving that the Council was compos'd of his Enemies, would not appear there. His Absence, irritated the Emperour against him, who call'd another Council to meet at Tyre, in the year 335, and wrote to St. Athanasius, that he should not fail to come there, which he did in such Terms, as might make him sensible, that he was not satisfi'd with his Conduct. St. Athanasius was forc'd to appear there in the quality of a Criminal; but he answer'd the Accusation of the Murder of Arsenius, by producing him before the Council. Ruffinus, says, That they still went on to accuse St. Athanasius, by a Woman of an ill Life, who was presently convicted of being a Cheat, because she took for him a Deacon call'd Timotheus, who feign'd himself to be Athanasius. But this History which is supported by no other Authority, but that of Ruffinus, appears very doubtful, because neither St. Athanasius nor the Council of Alexandria, which relates exactly all the Calumnies and Forgeries which were invented against St. Athanasius, say any thing of it, which they had never omitted, if it had been propos'd. There were some other wandring Reports alledg'd against him, but wanting Proof, they insisted upon that of the Chalice, which was suppos'd to be broken by Ma∣carius; and to inquire into this Crime, they sent Six Bishops to Mareotis, who were very reso∣lute against St. Athanasius, who heard many Witnesses to this purpose, in spite of all the Protesta∣tions of the Clergy of Mareotis and Alexandria. In the mean time, St. Athanasius retires, and ap∣peals to the Emperour; but the Synod condemns and deposes him upon the Information at Mareotis. This was no sooner done, but a Letter was brought from the Emperour, directed to the Bishops of the Council, to come presently to Jerusalem, to Celebrate the Dedication of a Church. In the mean time, St. Athanasius arrives at Constantinople, and desires Audience of the Emperour to justify himself: But this was not granted, and all that he could obtain, was an Order, wherein the Emperour sends for the Bishops that had condemn'd him, to come to Court, and give an Account to him of their Proceedings. But instead of coming in a Body, they sent only Eusebius of Nicomedia with Five other Deputies, who without saying any thing of the former Accusations fram'd against St. Athanasius, accus'd him now of having threatned to hinder the Exportation of Corn from Alexandria to Constantinople. The Emperour was so provok'd by this Accusation, that without hearing St. Athanasius, he banish'd him presently to Triers, a City in Gaul; but would not suffer his Bishoprick to be fill'd.

After the Death of Constantine the Great, the Three Caesars his Sons, Constantine, Constantius and Constans, permitted all the Banish'd Bishops to return to their Churches. St. Athanasius was sent back to Alexandria with Letters from Constantine, after he had been a Year and some Months in

Exile h 1.9. This Emperour praises St. Athanasius in his Letter, and says, That his Father would not have Ba∣nish'd him, but that the Eusebians had a design upon his Life, and that he had intended to recall him before his Death. He was no sooner return'd to Alexandria, but his ancient Enemies attack him anew: They say, That since his Return, he had stirr'd up Sedition in the City, and caus'd some Persons to be put in Prison, and others to be us'd harshly: but they chiefly insisted upon his Deposition by the Sy∣nod, alledging that he was incapable, according to the Canons, of returning to his Church, or per∣forming his Episcopal Function, till he was restor'd by another Synod. They insinuated themselves into the favour of Constantius, and moreover accuse St. Athanasius of Selling and taking Money for the Corn, which the Emperour had given to be distributed among the Poor, and the Widows of Alexandria. This Accusation drew upon St. Athanasius a very sharp Letter from the Emperour. And the Eusebians not contented to have Constantius on their side, would also have gain'd the other two Caesars, and therefore wrote to them against St. Athanasius, but they fail'd of their aim, and were refus'd. They endeavour'd also to render Pope Julius favourable to them, by offering him the Arbi∣tration of all their differences with St. Athanasius. But this Pope having accepted their offer, and Summon'd them to come to a Council, they refus'd it. In the mean time, St. Athanasius was absolv'd by a Synod of almost a Hundred Egyptian Bishops in the Year 339, who gave an Authentick Testimony of his Innocence in all the Heads of his Accusation. On the other side, the Eusebians assembled a Council at Antioch in 341, where after they had made a new Creed different from that of Nice, they resolv'd to send a Bishop to Alexandria: for which end, they first pitched upon Eusebius of Emesa; but he refusing, they chose one Gregory, and went to find out the Emperour, and pray'd that this Gre∣gory might be sent to Alexandria. St. Athanasius having only heard of this Choice, withdrew to Rome in the Year 341 i 1.10; where he was kindly receiv'd by Pope Julius, who admitted him to Commu∣nion, and sent presently Legates with Letters to Eusebius, and the other Bishops, to cite them to Rome. But the Eusebians did not come at the day which Julius had appointed them, detain'd his Le∣gates till the Month of January 342 k 1.11, and sent Gregory to Alexandria, who made himself Master of that Church by force, and used those of Athanasius's Party very ill. While the Eusebians thus desola∣ted the Church of Alexandria, the Pope held a Council at Rome in the Church of Vito the Presbyter l 1.12, towards the end of the Year 341 m 1.13. There all the Accusations of the Eusebians against St. Athanasius were examin'd, he himself was justified, declar'd Innocent by all the Bishops of the Council, and con∣tinued in Ecclesiastical Communion: but they determin'd nothing particularly about his Restauration n 1.14 to the See of Alexandria. The Eastern Bishops after a long delay at last made answer, towards the Beginning of the Year 342, by the Pope's Legates whom they sent back, excusing themselves because of the War of the Persians, that they could not come to Rome at the Day that he had appointed, and blaming Julius for receiving Athanasius into Communion after he was condemn'd, and for hearing a Cause anew, after it had been already determin'd. This Letter was written by a Synod of Antioch, held almost a Year after that which we have mention'd: And that which perplexes this Part of History to this Day, is the want of distinguishing these two Councils of Antioch, or the placing them at diffe∣rent times. Julius having received this Letter, took some time before he answer'd it, thinking that somebody at least would come from the Eastern Bishops, but nobody coming, he wrote them a long Letter o 1.15, which is set down by St. Athanasius; wherein he gives an account of all his Proceedings, and reprehends theirs with great sharpness.

The Cause of St. Athanasius continued in this State till the Council of Sardica, Summon'd by the Emperours in the Year 347. The Bishops of the East and the West met there; but those of the East

would not assist at the Council, unless St. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and the other Bishops depos'd by them, would appear as Criminals and Persons Excommunicated, and those of the West would not agree to this Condition: Whereupon the former withdrew, and the latter being left alone to the number of a Hundred, or thereabouts, pronounc'd the Sentence of Absolution of Athanasius, of Marcellus of Ancyra, and the other Bishops that had been condemn'd, restor'd them to their Digni∣ties, and condemn'd their Principal Adversaries; while the Bishops of the East on the other side, be∣ing Assembled at Philippopolis, wrote against those Bishops whom they condemn'd, and Excommuni∣cated Julius, Hosius, and the other Zealous Partisans of St. Athanasius. Things being at this pass, there was no Security for St. Athanasius to return to the East, without the Authority of the Emperour Constantius, who was Lord of that Part of the World, and therefore he stay'd then at Naisse, a City of Dacia, till Constans commanded him to come to Aquileia, and granted him his Protection.

The Death of Gregory, which happen'd in the Year 348, came very seasonably to remove the chief Obstacle of Athanasius's Return: For then, either because Constantius knew his Innocence, and the Malice of his Accusers, or because he was desir'd to do so by his Brother, he would not suffer any to be ordain'd Bishop of Alexandria, and recall'd St. Athanasius who was gone from Aquileia to Rome, to take his Farewel, of the Church of that City and its Bishop, and was come from thence to find out Constantius, and pray him to call his Enemies before him, that he might convict them in his Pre∣sence. The Emperour would do no such thing, but only sent him back to Alexandria, with Letters directed to the Bishops of Egypt, to the Clergy and the People of Alexandria, to which he adjoyn'd two Edicts to abrogate and annull all that had been done against this holy Bishop. St. Athanasius returning triumphantly with these Letters, was receiv'd even by the Bishops that had been less favou∣rable to him; and two of his greatest Enemies, Ursacius and Valens, seem'd to be outwardly recon∣cil'd to him. The Emperour Constans, Athanasius's Patron, dying in the Month of February, 350, he had some jealousie lest Constantius should renew that Persecution which he had already made him suffer. But the Emperour sent him word, that he should not trouble himself on that account; That he design'd to keep him always in his See, and forbade his Enemies to attack him. Thus Atha∣nasius, who was not yet entred within his Diocess, arriv'd there at last in the Month of March, 350, where he was receiv'd with the Publick Rejoycing of the Bishops of Egypt, his Clergy, and all the People. But he enjoy'd this Repose but a few Years, which seem'd to be granted him for ever; for after the Year 354, the Emperour Constantius sent a Courtier of his to the City of Alexandria with Letters to him, wherein he gives him leave to retire from Alexandria, supposing that he had desir'd it. St. Athanasius seeing that this Order was founded upon a False Supposition, was of opinion, that he ought not for this to go out of Alexandria. Twenty six Months after, Diogenes comes to Alex∣andria, and spreads a Report that the Emperour had given Order to drive away St. Athanasius from this City; but since Diogenes brought no Letters from the Emperour, St. Athanasius made Answer, that he should either show him a Letter from the Emperour, commanding him to depart from Alex∣andria, or at least, that the Governour of Egypt, or General of the Army, should deliver him an Or∣der in writing to this purpose. Twenty three Days after, Syrianus, General of the Army in Egypt, entered with his Souldiers into the Church, on the 27th. of January, 356, abus'd the Clergy, the People and the Virgins that were there assembled. During this Tumult, St. Athanasius being carried out by some Monks, sav'd himself, and retir'd into a Desart p 1.16. Constantius, understanding what had pass'd, sent an Edict to those of Alexandria, wherein he approves what was done against St. Athanasius, and exhorts the Youth to pursue him. The Count Heraclius publish'd this Edict, and encouraged some lewd young Men of Alexandria, who entred into the Churches, beat all those they met with, tore the Veils, the Seats and the Ornaments, and broke the Episcopal Chair in pieces, with such Violence, that none could check those Disorders; which were yet further heightned upon the Arrival of George, who was ordain'd Bishop of Alexandria by the Enemies of St. Athanasius. For this Man being come into the City of Alexandria some Days before Easter, entred forcibly into the Church, and caus'd all those that were for St. Athanasius to be driven away. Who meeting together in the Coemeterie and the desart Places, for the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries on Easter-Day, and the following Sun∣days, were driven from thence and beaten by the Souldiers; nay, and some of them lost their Lives. In short, because the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, were all for St. Athanasius, they drove away Eighty of them, and sent Six into banishment. These outrages were Authoriz'd by the Letter which Constantius wrote to the Alexandrians, in which he declares against St. Athanasius, and enjoins them to obey George. Thus it was impossible for St. Athanasius to return into the City of Alexandria, and therefore he was forc'd to lie hid in the Desart, where he compos'd many Books.

After the Death of Constantius, Julian the Apostate became Master of the Empire, who taking no side in the Disputes of Religion that were among the Christians, permitted all the exil'd Bishops to return to their Country. It happen'd at the same time, that George, who had intruded himself into the Church of Alexandria, was kill'd in a popular Sedition in the Year 362. His Death facilitated the Return of St. Athanasius to the City of Alexandria, and his Restauration to his See in that City. When he was return'd, he assembled a Council to regulate the manner of receiving the Arians, who had a desire to return into the bosom of the Church, and to compose some Differences which had happen'd in the Church of Antioch. But he could not long employ himself for the good of the Church, for the Pagans having rendred him odious to the Emperour Julian, he sent an Order, directed to those of Alex∣andria, importing that Athanasius should depart from their City, because he had only permitted the

Exil'd Bishops to return into their Country, but not to re-enter upon their Sees. The People of Alexandria, who lov'd St. Athanasius extremely, sent Deputies to the Emperour, to pray him, that he would not force him out of Alexandria: But this Message only provoked the Emperour against him, who thereupon presently banish'd him, not only from Alexandria, but also from all Egypt. It is said also, That he gave Secret Orders to put him to Death. St. Athanasius having heard this News, fled beyond the River Nile: And 'tis reported, That he was follow'd very close by those that were sent to stop him, and he returning the same way that they pursu'd him, met them on the Road, but when they enquir'd if he had seen Athanasius, one of his Company answer'd, That he was not far off, and if they would make haste, they might overtake him; and so having deluded them, he return'd to Alexandria. But be this as it will, 'tis certain, That he lay conceal'd till the Reign of Jovian a Christian Prince, who succeeded Julian. In the Year 363, this Emperour came and found him with some other Bishops of Egypt, at the City of Antioch, where they held a kind of a Synod q 1.17; and there they drew up a Letter which was address'd to the Emperour, wherein they propose to him the Nicene Creed, as the Rule of Orthodox Faith, and condemn those that denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

St. Athanasius was also persecuted under the Reign of Valens, who being baptiz'd in 367, by Eu∣doxus, an Arian Bishop of Constantinople, made an Edict, wherein he ordains, That all the Bishops that had been depos'd under Constantius, should be forc'd away from their Sees. The Governour of Egypt having receiv'd this Edict, prepar'd to put it in Execution against St. Athanasius, but was hin∣dred by the People. In the mean time, this Saint fearing lest he should be seiz'd, (as they really in∣tended to do afterwards) and seeing the Commotions of the People appeas'd, retir'd to the Country into the Sepulchre of his Fathers, and lay there conceal'd for the space of Four Months; but Valens was oblig'd to recall him. We are inform'd by the 47th. Letter of St. Basil, That at this time St. Atha∣nasius had some Difference with the Governour of Libya, whom he Excommunicated; but we know nothing of the occasion of this Quarrel. At last, St. Athanasius, after so many Revolutions and Persecu∣tions, did happily end the course of this troublesome Life, in the Year 373 of Jesus Christ r 1.18, after he had been Bishop of Alexandria more than 48 Years. And thus I have given you in a few words the History of this Saint, taken out of his own Works, and the Authors that wrote either his Life, or the History of his time: Let us now give an Account of his Writings.

St. Athanasius was one of those Authors who were forc'd to write, and were engag'd to take Pen in hand, rather by an Obligation to defend themselves, than upon any design to make Books; and therefore the greatest Part of his Books, are either Apologies to justify himself, or Invectives against his Enemies, or Treatises of Controversy against the Errors of the Arians. They are all written in the form of Letters, a way of Writing which is most simple in the Composure, and at the same time most natural, and most proper for one that is in a place of Retirement.

There is great probability, that his Two Treatises against the Gentiles, were the first which he com∣pos'd, because he does not there attack the Arians, as he does in all the other Books which he made, after he had any personal Differences with them. The last of these Two Books, is entituled at present, Concerning the Incarnation, and Theodoret cites it under that Name; but St. Jerom gives them both the Title of, Treatises against the Gentiles, and indeed, they are both written rather to Convert Pagans, than to Instruct Christians.

The next Work of St. Athanasius, after these Two Treatises, is his Apologetick s 1.19 to the Emperour Constantius, which he wrote sometime after he was forc'd away from Alexandria, in the Year 356. He wrote also the same Year, Two Letters t 1.20 upon the Persecution which the Christians of

Alexandria suffer'd, when George took Possession of that Episcopal See. The First which was address'd to the Bishops of Egypt, is improperly call'd The first Discourse against the Arians. The Second is written to all the Orthodox Bishops. A little time after, he compos'd his Two Apologies in the place of his Retirement: 'Tis likewise very probable, that he wrote at that time his Four Treatises against the Arians, which he address'd to the Monks, as we learn from the beginning of his Letter to Serapion, concerning the Death of Arius. His Letter to those that lead a Monastick Life, is made up of two different Pieces: The First is a Letter written to the Monks, which is a kind of Preface to some Trea∣tise against the Arians, and may be so to that which follows; it contains about a Page and a half, and ends at these words in Page 810. Gratia Domini Jesu Christi sit vobiscum, Amen. The following Treatise which was address'd to those that lead a Monastick Life, is a History of all that pass'd from the beginning of Arianism, to the fall of Hosius and Liberius, i. e. to the Year 358. There are some Pe∣riods in the beginning, which are lost, that not only this Treatise has no Connexion with the Letter that precedes it, but also there is no Sence in the beginning of it: And I am astonish'd to think, that so many able Men should read this Book without perceiving, or at least without observing it. The Letter to Serapion, concerning the Death of Arius, was written after the Treatise which is directed to those that lead a Monastick Life, as appears by the beginning of it. The Book of Synods was com∣pos'd in 359 u 1.21, before the Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, were ended: He afterwards added in this Book, what concerns the Council of Constantinople in 360, and what is there said concerning the Death of Constantius. The two Latin Letters which are at the End of the Works of Lucifer Calari∣tanus, were also written under Constantius. The Letter of the Council of Alexandria, to those of Antioch, was written after the Death of that Emperour, in 362; the Letter of the Council of An∣tioch, under Jovian, was written in 363: That which is directed to all the Bishops of Egypt and A∣rabia, Syria and Phoenicia, was written in 368; under the Reign of Valens, as well as that which is directed to the Africans x 1.22. And the Letter to Epictetus was written last y 1.23.

There are besides, many other Works of St. Athanasius, of which the Chronology is not known, which it concerns us to distinguish well from those that are doubtful or supposititious. These Works are in the First Volume. The Homily upon these Words, My Father hath given me all things, p. 149. The Epistle to Adelphius, p. 155. That to Maximus, p. 162. Two Letters to Serapion, to prove, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not Creatures, p. 166, and 173. An Exposition of the Faith, p. 240. A Letter concerning the History of the Decision of the Council of Nice, p. 248. A Letter of the Judgment of Dionysius of Alexandria upon the Trinity, p. 548. A Treatise of the Union of the

Humane Nature to the Word, which is cited by Theodoret, under the Name of, A Book against the Arians, p. 595. Two Books of the Incarnation, against Apollinarius, p. 614, 633. A Treatise against the Followers of Sabellius, p. 650. An Epistle to John and to Antiochus, p. 951. An Epistle to Pal∣ladius, p. 952. An Epistle to Dracontius, p. 955. An Epistle to Marcellinus, concerning the In∣terpretation of the Psalms, p. 959. The Homily of the Sabbath and Circumcision, p. 964. A Trea∣tise upon the Words of Jesus Christ, Whosoever shall be guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this World, nor in that which is to come, p. 970.

In the Second Volume; there are few of his Genuine Works; but here follow those which we own. Two Letters to Serapion, concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, p. 10, and 16. A short Discourse against the Arians, p. 22. The Conferences of St. Athanasius with the Arians, in the presence of Jovian, from p. 27, to p. 29. An Epistle to Ammon, p. 35. A Fragment of one, p. 39. A Festival Epistle, p. 38. An Epistle to Russinian, p. 40. A Book of the Abridgment of the Holy Scripture, p. 55. All these Works, whereof some are cited by the Ancients, agree well enough with the Style of St. Athana∣sius, and they contain nothing in my Opinion, which gives just cause to suspect them of Forgery z 1.24.

There is not any of the other Works, that bear the Name of St. Athanasius, besides those which we have already mention'd, that is Genuine, but they are all either manifestly Supposititious, or very doubt∣ful.

The Treatise which has this Title, That there is but one Jesus Christ, altho' it be ancient, yet is not written by St. Athanasius. For, First, This Author places Marcellus of Ancyra, amongst the He∣reticks, whereas St. Athanasius always communicated with him as a Catholick Bishop, even in the last Years of his Life, as appears by the Letters of St. Basil, which complain of St. Athanasius upon this occasion. Secondly, The Author of this Treatise, acknowledges but one only Hypostasis in Jesus Christ, whereas St. Athanasius always took this Word, rather to signify the Nature, than to denote the Person aa 1.25.

For this last Reason we ought also to reject the little Treatise of the Incarnation against Paulus Samosatenus, which is in the First Volume of St. Athanasius, p. 591. because the Author of it owns three Hypostases in the Trinity.

The Refutation of the Hypocrisie of Meletius, is rather the Work of Paulinus of Antioch, or some of his Party, than of St. Athanasius, who was neither so conceited of the Notion of three Hypostases, nor so transported with anger against Meletius, as the Author of this Treatise was.

The Book of Virginity bb 1.26, has nothing of the Style of St. Athanasius, and it contains some Precepts very remote from the Genius and Discipline of his time. There is a Difference between him that wrote upon this Subject, who is cited by Theodoret, and him whom St. Jerom mentions.

The Treatise of Testimonies drawn from the Holy Scriptures, to prove the Essential Unity of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, is none of St. Athanasius's. 1. Because the Author there re∣lates some Passages of the Questions to Antiochus, which were written a long time after St. Athanasius, as we shall shew hereafter. 2. The Stile of this Treatise is very different from that of St. Athanasius. 3. He uses childish Expressions, and gives impertinent Definitions of Angels and Men.

The Homily of the Annunciation, or of the Virgin, is also written by a later Author than St. Athana∣sius. 1. Because he expresly refutes the Error of Nestorius, and that of the Monothelites; and yet neither St. Cyril, nor any other Catholick Author, alledges this Book against those Hereticks. 2. In ex∣plaining the Doctrine of the Church, he uses such Terms, as were not in use till after the Nestorians and Eutychians time; as when he says, That he acknowledges two Natures in Jesus Christ, without Confusion or Mixture, without Change or Division, Terms which were not us'd till after the Council of Ephesus. 3. He detests the Error of those that call'd Jesus Christ, a Man-bearing God, an expression which St. Athanasius did not reject, and the Ancients sometimes made use of, and which was not condemn'd till after Nestorius had abus'd it. 4. He gives a ridiculous Etymology of the Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by saying, that it comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is not a Greek word.

The Life of St. Syncletica cc 1.27, publish'd in Latin, by Bollandus, and in Greek, by the Learned Cote∣lierius, in his First Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church, is suspected of falshood, because no body mentions it before Nicephorus; and in some Manuscripts, 'tis ascrib'd to a Monk nam'd Poly∣carp; besides that, it has nothing of the Stile of St. Athanasius.

The Life of St. Anthony has better Authority dd 1.28; for St. Jerom and St. Gregory Nazianzen, say posi∣tively, That St. Athanasius wrote the History of the Life of this Father of Monks; but still 'tis doubted, whether that which we now have, be not different from that which was known to these Ancients. Rivet and other Protestant Criticks, being Enemies of all those Books which concern Monkery, boldly reject this Life, as a supposititious Work: But their Reasons are not wholly convincing, and all the Circumstances of the Life of St. Anthony, related by the Ancients, are to be found in this Book, and therefore I think it very probable that this was St. Athanasius's, altho' something might be added or chang'd in it, as it often happen'd to Books of this nature.

The Creed which bears the Name of St. Athanasius ee 1.29, pass'd a long time without any Contradiction, as a Work which was truly this Father's; and yet, now all the World agrees, that 'twas none of his,

but some Authors that liv'd a long time after him. 'Tis not certainly known whose it is; some have attributed it to some French; others, as Father Quesnel, think that 'tis written by Vigilius Tapsensis, who liv'd towards the End of the Fifth Age of the Church. Howsoever this be, 'tis certain that 'twas com∣pos'd after the Council of Chalcedon, because it rejects so formally the Errors of the Nestorians and Eu∣tychians, that 'tis evident it aims at these two Heresies.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Book address'd to Queens, and his Defence of the Eighth Anathema∣tism, cites a Confession of Faith under the Name of St. Athanasius, about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, which is still found among the Works of this Father, in the Second Vol. P. 30. St. John Da∣mascene, B. III. Of the Orthodox Faith, Ch. 6. and Theorianus, attribute it to St. Athanasius. Basil of Seleucia, in the First Act of the Council of Constantinople, says, 'Twas reported that St. Athanasius was the Author of an Expression which is found in this Confession of Faith, viz. That the Word had but one Nature Incarnate. But Leontius in his Book of Sects, denies that St. Athanasius was the Author of this Sentence, and the Catholick Bishops at a Conference held at Constantinople against the Severians in the Year 533, have also rejected it, as being falsly attributed to St. Athanasius. And truly the Do∣ctrine and Expressions of this Confession of Faith about the Incarnation, do not at all agree with those of St. Athanasius in his Books of the Incarnation; in which he does not only say nothing which may favour the Error of the Eutychians, but also he formally rejects it, and rather favours the contrary Opinion.

The other Works attributed to St. Athanasius, are yet more manifestly Supposititious, and no body almost has acknowledg'd them for Genuine. The Dispute against Arius ff 1.30 which is in the First Vo∣lume, is a Dialogue compos'd under the Names of St. Athanasius and Arius, by some body that liv'd long after. This is plain, and all the World is agreed in't; but 'tis not known who is the Author of it. Some have attributed it to Vigilius Tapsensis; but for my part, I rather believe that 'tis the Work of a Greek, than a Latin Author, and that it may well be attributed to Maximus.

The Letter of Liberius to St. Athanasius, and the Answer of this Saint to Liberius gg 1.31, agree not at all with the History of these two Bishops, and have no resemblance of their Stile.

The Explication of these words of Jesus Christ to his Apostles, Go to the Village that is over against you, and there ye shall find a Colt tied hh 1.32; the Homily upon the Passion ii 1.33 of Jesus Christ, and that upon the Seed kk 1.34, which are found at the End of the First Volume, have neither the Stile nor the Air of St. Athanasius, and contain many things unworthy of him.

The Discourse against all Heresies, which is the last Work of the First Volume of St. Athanasius, is confus'd, and the Stile mean, as is observ'd in an Ancient Manuscript. He opposes in a few words all Heresies, contrary to the Custom of St. Athanasius, who refutes very largely all those he takes in hand. The Oration upon the Ascension of Jesus Christ, is of a Stile more florid than that of St. Athanasius, the Phrases are forc'd and tumid, whereas St. Athanasius writes in a Simple and Natural Stile. The Oration of Melchisedeck cannot be St. Athanasius's, since the Author mentions the Fathers of the Council of Nice as dead long before.

The Letter of Jovian to St. Athanasius, and that of St. Athanasius to Jovian, which are in the Se∣cond Volume, are much to be suspected. That of St. Athanasius discovers the Forgery, because it contains a Confession of Faith different from that of the Council of Nice, and 'tis certain that he sent no other to this Emperour. The Author of this Letter writes in such terms, as plainly discover that he was not St. Athanasius, but rather Apollinarius, since he acknowledges but one Nature in Jesus Christ; and indeed, Leontius testifies that Apollinarius had inserted this Doctrine in a Letter to the Emperour Jovian. The Book of Definitions, which are pretended to be Collections out of St. Cle∣ment, and other holy Fathers, cannot be St. Athanasius's, since the Author cites in it Gregory Nyssen, in the Chapter of the Act. Moreover, he speaks of two Natures and one Person in Jesus Christ, as if he had written after the Birth of the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. A good part of the Book is taken out of a Book of Anastasius Sinaita, entituled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Guide; and in some Manuscripts, the Definitions are ascrib'd to Maximus, under whose Name Father Combefis has Publish'd them.

All the Learned agree, that the Seven Dialogues of the Trinity, are not St. Athanasius's ll 1.35; the diffe∣rence of the Stile, the Terms, and the Doctrine, are convincing Proofs of it; and 'tis plain, that the Author of this Treatise liv'd since the Council of Constantinople, at the time when the Disputes about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ were afoot in the Church. Father Combefis has restor'd them to Maxi∣mus mm 1.36, upon the Authority of some Manuscripts, and the Testimony of the Modern Greeks, who cite them often under the Name of this Author. Garnerius a very learned Jesuit, ascribes them to Theodoret, and has printed them under his Name, in a pretended Supplement to the Works of this Father. But he has nothing to support this Opinion but some slight Conjectures nn 1.37; and he does not sufficiently refute the Assertion of Father Combefis.

The following Book, entituled, A Tragedy, is falsly attributed to St. Athanasius. Photius in Cod. 46. sets down all the Titles of the Questions which are handled in this Book, with some others that are not found there, and ascribes them to Theodoret. Garnerius upon the Credit of Marius Mercator attributes them to Etherius Tyanaeus a Disciple of Theodoret.

The Questions to Antiochus, and those that follow them, are yet later oo 1.38 than those Books of which we have already spoken: These were made by some Modern Greek, and seem to be all written

by the same Author. The Homily of the Vigils of Easter, has nothing of the Stile of St. Athanasius, but is dry and barren, and full of affected Figures. The Fragments of the Commentary upon the Psalms; related by Nicetas in his Catena, are very dubious, and so much the more, because we have no account in the Ancients that St. Athanasius ever compos'd a Commentary upon the Psalms. The same must be said of the Passages taken out of the Catena upon Job; for there is not much Credit to be given to these Catena's made by the Modern Greeks. But the Passages cited by Theodoret; are more valuable, for they are almost all found in some of the Works of St. Athanasius which we have men∣tion'd, excepting only those which he cites as taken out of a large Discourse of this Father about Faith. We must also acknowledge for Genuine the Fragment of a Treatise of St. Athanasius upon these words of Jesus Christ, My Soul is troubled, which is recited in the Sixth Council, Art. 14. for besides the Au∣thority of this Council, which cites it as St. Athanasius's, 'tis easie to perceive, that it has the Stile and Air of this Father. 'Tis also very probable, that the Passages cited by Gelasius and St. John Damascene, and set down at the end of the Second Volume, P. 547, and 548, are St. Athanasius's. The Passage of a Letter to Eupsychius pp 1.39, recited in Latin in the Sixth Council, is not so certainly his, for it is not written in his Stile, and we read no-where else that St. Athanasius ever wrote to Eupsychius. Photius mentions a Commentary of St. Athanasius upon Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; we have nothing of it at present and I doubt very much, whether it was St. Athanasius's, since Photius himself confesses, that it had not the Stile of his other Works, and that none of the Ancients, mention it. The Eleven Books of the Unity of the Godhead in the Trinity, belong to Vigilius qq 1.40, a Deacon of Africk, and afterwards Bishop of Tapsa, as well as the Dialogue, or Conference of Arius and St. Athanasius, which follows these Eleven Books.

The Exhortation to the Monks, and to the Spouse of Jesus Christ, which is in the Collection of Hol∣stenius, has nothing of the Stile of St. Athanasius, no more than the Book entituled, Instructions abridg'd for Monks and Christians, publish'd not long ago in Greek and Latin, by Arnoldus, and printed at Paris by the Widow Martin, in the Year 1685. These Books are written in a mean Stile, and contain such Rules and Precepts, as neither agree with the Person, nor the Genius of St. Athanasius.

The Letters of St. Athanasius to the Bishops of Egypt, to the Popes Marcus and Felix rr 1.41, and those of these Popes to these Bishops, are notoriously False and Supposititious.

The Relation of the Passion of the Image of Jesus Christ in the City of Berytus ss 1.42, cannot be St. Atha∣nasius's;

since the History which is there related, happen'd not, as is pretended, till the Year 765, and moreover, it is full of Fables, and unworthy of St. Athanasius.

The Fragment upon the Incarnation, against the Disciples of Paulus Samosatenus, is done by an an∣cient Author; but we have it not in Greek, and there is no proof that it was St. Athanasius's.

The other Fragment of the Sabbath, is an Extract from part of the Homily upon the same Subject, which is in Greek, Vol. I. of St. Athanasius's Works.

The Seven Homilies publish'd by Holstenius, have nothing of the Stile of St. Athanasius, but are written by some late Greek Declaimer. There is nothing in them that is useful or sublime; and they come not near the Noble Simplicity of St. Athanasius's Writings, as those who have any relish of such things, are all agreed.

The Four other Discourses publish'd by Father Combefis, tho' they are more useful than the former, yet they are not St. Athanasius's. The First rejects so expresly the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, that 'tis plain, 'twas compos'd after these Two Hereticks had publish'd their Doctrine.

The Two Last about Easter and Ascension, are attributed in some Manuscripts to St. Basil of Seleu∣cia, and 'tis probable that they are all Four written by him. St. John Damascene, or the Author of a Discourse upon the Dead, cites a Discourse of St. Athanasius, upon the same Subject; but we have none that bears this Title; and 'tis probable that this which is cited by this Author, is supposititious. I say nothing of the Commentary upon the Psalms, which in its First Edition, bore the Name of St. Athanasius, because now 'tis certainly known, that 'twas written by Theophylact.

When we consider the Works of St. Athanasius, with respect to the Subject on which they treat, they may be distinguish'd into four sorts: The First, are Historical, and relate to the History of his own time; the Second sort, are purely Dogmatical; the Third concern Morality; and the Last, are upon the Holy Scriptures. His Apologies ought to be rank'd under the First Head. The First Apology was written immediately after he was driven out of Alexandria, and is address'd to the Emperour Con∣stantius. There he refutes the Calumnies which his Enemies had made use of, to render him odious to Constantius. And the better to insinuate himself into the Emperour's Favour; he begins his Dis∣course with saying, That he made his Defence with much assurance before an Emperour, who had been long a Christian, and whose Ancestors had embrac'd the true Religion: That having made use of the Words of St. Paul, for his own Defence, he took him for his Intercessor with the Emperour, to whom, no doubt, he would give a favourable Hearing. Then he adds, That 'twas not necessary for him to purge himself from the Accusation relating to Ecclesiastical Matters, which his Enemies had formerly fram'd against him, since as to them he was sufficiently justified by the Testimony of an in∣finite Number of Bishops, and by the Retraction of Ursacius and Valens, who had acknowledg'd, that all those Accusations were pure Calumnies invented by them to destroy him; and that tho' these things were not so, yet he ought not to have any regard to an Information made in his absence by his Enemies, which should be of no weight, according to all Laws both Divine and Humane. And there∣fore without insisting upon those former Accusations in this Apology, he refutes those which were made use of since his Return, to blacken his Reputation with the Emperour. First of all, he is accus'd of having spoken ill of this Emperour to his Brother Constans. But he takes God to Witness, that he never did it, and says, That it had been a madness in him, to have attempted so bold a thing: That Constans would never have suffer'd it: That he had not so great an Interest in him, as to dare say any thing against his Brother: That he never spoke to him, but in the presence of many Persons who were Witnesses of what he said. But to prove the falseness of this Accusation beyond exception, he makes a faithful Relation of all that pass'd in his Voyage to Italy; wherein he says, That he parted from Alexandria, to put his Person and Reputation under the Protection of the Church of Rome; That ••e assisted at the Assemblies of the Faithful there; That he wrote but twice to Constans, while he staid at Alexandria: The First time to defend himself against some Letters full of Calumnies, which his Enemies had wrote to him; And the Second time, to send him some Copies of the Holy Scrip∣tures; and that he never went to wait on him but twice, and both times by his own Order. At Last, he says, That the Emperour may judge by the manner of his speaking of his greatest Enemies, whe∣ther he was capable of speaking ill of him to his own Brother. The Second Accusation was no less heinous, for they accus'd him of having written a Letter to the Tyrant Magnentius, and they said, That they had the Original of his Letter. To which St. Athanasius answers, That this Accusation had no appearance of Truth; That he had never seen nor known Magnentius; That he never had occasion to write to him; That he had all the reason in the World, to detest him, and to hold no Correspon∣dence with him; That the first Calumny destroy'd this, since 'twas incredible, that one who was so much for the Interest of Constans, should be of this Tyrant's Faction, who had revolted from him, and cruelly kill'd him. And as to their pretending to have this Letter, he says, 'Twas not to be won∣dred at, that they had found out an Impostor, since 'twas very well known, that they had counter∣feited the Emperour's Letters. But he prays Constantius, to enquire from whence they had this Let∣ter, and who gave it them; and to Summon before him the Secretaries of Magnentius, and inform himself, if they had ever receiv'd it: He conjures him to examin this Cause, as if Truth it self were present at his Decision; for, says he, If they had accus'd me before any other Judge, I might have ap∣peal'd to the Emperour; but being accus'd before the Emperour, to whom can I appeal, but to the Father of him who is call'd the Truth, that is, to God? Then he addresses to him in a lively and ele∣gant Prayer, That he might enlighten the mind of the Emperour, to judge in a Cause which con∣cern'd the whole Church. The third Accusation is concerning his Celebration of the Holy Mysteries in the Great Church before it was Consecrated: To which he answers, That he did not Celebrate the Dedication of this Church, which he could not do, without the Order of the Emperour; but he con∣fesses,

that he did Celebrate there the Divine Mysteries before its Consecration. He excuses himself upon the account of the great Concourse of People that came to Alexandria on Easter-Day; and says, That the old Churches were small and few in Number, and that the People demanding earnestly to Assemble in the Great Church, there to make Prayers for the Safety of the Emperour, he us'd much entreaty, but in vain, that they would delay it, and rather Assemble, tho' with some inconvenience, in the other Churches; and they would not obey him, but on the contrary, were ready to go out of Alexandria, to keep their Assembly in the Fields: That this was the reason which oblig'd him to Ce∣lebrate in the Great Church before it was Consecrated, which he did so much the rather, because du∣ring the Fast of Lent, many Persons had been hurt in the press of the People. That 'twas not a thing without Example, that he had Celebrated Divine Offices in a Church, before its Dedication. That his Predecessor had done the like in the Church of St. Theonas, which he had built, and he had seen the same done at Aquileia: That 'twas much more convenient to Celebrate in a place that was intend∣ed for the Assemblies of the Faithful, tho' it was not yet Consecrated, than to do it in the Fields, or in those Churches, where the People were in danger of being stifled. He observes, That tho' there had been no such fear of Danger, yet 'twas more expedient, that all the Faithful should offer up their Prayers together in one and the same Place, (tho' 'twas not yet Consecrated,) than that they should do it apart in several Places. He was also accus'd of disobeying the Emperour's Orders, when he com∣manded him to depart from Alexandria. To which he answers, That he was not disobedient to his Orders, but that Montanus having brought him the Letter in which the Emperour permits him to de∣part from Alexandria, and go for Italy, as if he had ask'd leave; he did not think 'twas the Em∣perour's Intention that he should withdraw, but that his Enemies had inform'd the Emperour, that he desir'd to retire. That afterwards Diogenes came to Alexandria, without bringing any Letter or Or∣der from the Emperour, and at his Arrival, 'twas sufficiently publish'd, that he must withdraw, but still there was no Order for it to him from the Emperour, either by Word of Mouth, or in Writing: That he always said, He was ready to depart, whensoever the Emperour should Write to him, or Command him to do so; but 'twas agreed not to trouble the Church, till such time as he should re∣ceive his Orders: That Twenty Three Days after, Syrianus, General of the Army in Egypt, entered into the Church with his Souldiers, the People being there at Prayers, on the Vigil when we ought to Celebrate Divine Mysteries; that there be committed great Outrages, and oblig'd him to retire into a Desart; and so he was neither Guilty for Flying, nor for Disobeying the Orders of the Emperour. He says, That if he had retir'd sooner, he had been Guilty both before God and Men, for 'tis a great Crime in a Bishop, to abandon his Flock, when he is not absolutely forc'd to do it. He adds, That he in∣tended to go and wait upon the Emperour, and was come out of the Desart upon this Design, and tho' he knew very well the Ill treatment those Bishops had met with that refus'd to Sign against him, and the Violence that had been us'd against those of Alexandria, who took his part; yet he did not give over his intended Voyage upon that Account, but having seen an Order to seize him, sent to the Ma∣gistrates of Auxumis, he apprehended the Rage of his Enemies, and therefore return'd again to hide himself in his Solitude.

In the First Apology for his Flying, he justifies himself against the Arians, who accus'd him of timorousness: He describes the Deadly Effects of their Fury, and the Mischiefs they had done to the greatest Bishops of the World, Hosius, Liberius, Paul of Constantinople, and many others. He shows by the Examples of Jacob, Moses, David, Elias, St. Paul and Jesus Christ; and by the Command of Christ in Matt. 10. That 'tis lawful to fly from Persecution, and that 'tis oftentimes of greater Use than to expose ourselves to danger: He observes, That the Saints who deliver'd themselves up to their Persecutors, did it by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He demands of his Adversaries, where they had learn'd, that 'tis permitted to Persecute, and not permitted to Fly: He objects to them, that the Devil is the cause of Persecution, and that Jesus Christ has advis'd Flight. At last, he complains of the Violence they used against himself, and the Mischiefs they still do to the Church.

In the Second Apology, he justifies himself from the former Accusations made against him, by set∣ting down the Judgments given in his Favour, in the Councils of Egypt, Rome and Sardica, whose Letters he produces at full length. These Monuments are very considerable for the History of that Time, because there are particular Remark•• in them about the Discipline of the Church: As, for in∣stance, we learn from the Letter of the Synod of Alexandria, that the Bishop of Alexandria was cho∣sen by the People, and ordain'd by the Bishops of the whole Province of Egypt; That the Ecclesiasti∣cal Laws forbid the Translations of Bishops; That the Mystery of the Eucharist was carefully conceal'd from those that were no Christians; That 'twas an Impiety to break a Chalice, and to spill the Blood of Jesus Christ; That the Eucharist was given to the Laicks in both kinds; That 'twas Consecrated on Sunday, and that 'twas kept for some time; That none but Priests lawfully ordain'd could consecrate and distribute it; That the Bishop had a Throne, or a Seat, that was rais'd higher than other Seats. Julius the Bishop of Rome, maintains in his Letter, That he could examine anew in one Synod what had been ordain'd in another, and alledges the Example, rather than the Authority of the Council of Nice. He lays claim to this Power, and complains that St. Athanasius was condemn'd without send∣ing him notice: He blames the Eusebians for sending a Stranger, that liv'd almost 60 Leagues off from Alexandria, to take Possession of the Episcopal See of that City. After this, he recites two Letters from the Council of Sardica, one address'd to the Church of Alexandria, and the other to all the Bishops of the World, which contain an ample Justification of St. Athanasius; and the last con∣tains the Subscriptions of many Bishops who Subscribed in this Council afterwards. And after these Letters, there follow three Letters of Constantius to St. Athanasius, commanding him to return; one

Letter of Julius to the Church of Alexandria, wherein he congratulates the Alexandrians upon the R••turn of their Bishop; the Letters of Recommendation which Constantius gave him to return to Alexandria, the Letter of the Synod of Jerusalem to the Church of Alexandria in favour of St. Atha∣nasius, and last of all, the Retractation of Ursacius and Valens address'd to Julius, wherein they de∣clare, That all which was said against Athanasius was false, that they acknowledg'd Arius for an He∣retick, and anathematiz'd his Error; and one Letter from the same Bishops address'd to St. Atha∣nasius, wherein they declare, that they are of his Communion. After St. Athanasius has thus produc'd these Instruments of his Absolution, being desirous to show that he had done nothing partially, out of favour to himself, goes back again as far as the Beginning of the Schism of Meletius and the Heresie of Arius, and gives an account of all that pass'd upon this occasion until his Exile, reciting the Au∣thentick Acts to justifie all that he Asserts: So that for the future, to read the History of that time, one should begin at the Second Part of this Apology, which begins towards the middle of P. 777. of the Greek and Latin Edition at Paris, and then resume the Beginning of the History, when he shall have finish'd this Second Part.

He wrote also this History long before with more order, and deduces it higher in his Book which is call'd, A Letter to those that lead a Monastick Life. After he has there related all that pass'd about the Cause of Arianism till the Council of Sar••ica, he insists upon the Circumstances of the Banishment of Pope Liberius. He says, That the Arians did not at all spare him, that they had not any respect for the City of Rome, the Metropolis of the whole Roman Empire, nor for the holy Apostolical See; that by their Instigation, the Emperour had sent a Bishop to Rome, to perswade the Bishop there to Condemn St. Athanasius. But Liberius refusing him, answer'd, That it was against the Canons to condemn a Man that is absent, who had been judg'd worthy of Communion while he was present at Rome; That if the Emperour would determine the Controversies of the Church, he should assemble a Free Council, where there was neither Prince, nor Courtier, and where all things might be decided in the Fear of God, and according to the Doctrine of the Apostles; and where every one should fol∣low the Faith of the Council of Nice, and from whence those should be excluded that would not profess to follow it; and afterwards the Council might Examine the Matters now in Debate. He adds, That the Bishop having entred into the Church of St. Peter to consecrate the Presents that were brought to Liberius, as soon as he understood that they were intended to procure his Subscription against St. Athanasius, he reproved the Sacristan for receiving them, and threw them out of the Church as Sacri∣legious Offerings: That when these things were told to the Emperour, he caus'd him to be brought to Constantinople, and that the Pope spoke to him more sharply than he had done at Rome, whereupon he was sent into Banishment; and there he was forc'd at last to subscribe for fear of Death, after he had resisted for the space of two Years. After this, he describes the Fall of Hosius; and tells us, that Constantius being sollicited by the Arians, who would fain engage to their Party a Bishop of so great Authority, exhorted him to Subscribe; and that the Holy Man not only could not endure the Pro∣posal, but perswaded the Emperour to let him alone, and retir'd into his own Country: And that the Arians still continuing to sollicite the Emperour, he wrote many Letters, fill'd sometimes with fair Promises, sometimes with Threats, to oblige him to Condemn Athanasius. But the Generous Old-man answer'd him in a Letter which St. Athanasius produces, wherein he declares to him that he had suffer'd under the Reign of Maximian for the Faith, and that he was still ready to suffer, and to shed his Blood for the defence of Innocence and Truth; he advises him not to hearken to those Easter∣lings, any more than he would do to Ursacius and Valens. He tells him, That he was Mortal, and that he ought to be afraid of the Day of Judgment; That he ought to meddle no more in Eccle∣siastical Matters, than the Bishops should in Temporals. His words are excellent, which are these; [Remember, says he, that you are Mortal, fear the Day of Judgment, keep your self in Purity, that you may appear there amongst the number of the Elect: Do not meddle at all in Ecclesiastical Affairs, and Command us nothing about those Matters; but learn them of us. God has given the Power of the Em∣pire into your hands, and has entrusted with us that which concerns the Church; and as he who Invades your Empire, acts against the Order of God, so take heed that you render not your self Guilty of a very heinous Crime, by assuming to your self a Power in those things which are of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. ▪Tis written, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's; So then we are not permitted to govern the Empire of the World, and you, Sir, have no Power at all in things that are Sacred.] After this, St. Athanasius relates the Violence that was done to H••sius to make him Subscribe, and how the Emperour caus'd him to go to Sirmium, where he detain'd him till he had communicated with Ursacius and Valens. The rest of this Letter is a very vehement Decla∣mation, against the Outrages and Persecutions of Constantius and the Arians; to which is added, a Protestation of the People of Alexandria, concerning the Violences that were used against St. Atha∣nasius.

The Book of the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, contains not only the History of these two Councils, but also of the Principal Creeds made by the Bishops of Arius's Faction after that which was made by the Council of Nice, which he sets down in its full length. From thence he takes oc∣casion to treat of the word, Consubstantial, which he maintains against the Arians; and yet he acknow∣ledges, that they are not to be treated as Hereticks, who scruple to make use of this word, though they confess the Faith of the Divinity of the Son: He explains in what sence this word was con∣demn'd in the Council of Antioch, held against Paulus Samosatenus, and alledges for his sence the Te∣stimony of the two Dionysii, who made use of this word.

Besides these Works of St. Athanasius, which contain the Deduction of the History of that time, there are some others which concern particular Facts.

The First is the Book of the Definitions of the Council of Nice, wherein he defends the Decisions of this Council, and takes notice of the considerable Circumstances of it. He says, That the Bishops of the Council, who were about 300 in number, desir'd the Arians with great meekness, to justifie themselves, but scarce had they begun to speak, when all the Bishops disapprov'd them; That the Hereticks could not agree among themselves, but were oblig'd to keep silence, and then the Bishops made the Creed, which was sign'd by the Eusebians; That Eusebius of Caesarea in Palaestine, who had refus'd to sign the day before, approv'd of it next day, and wrote to those of his Church about it. After this, he Disputes against the Impiety of the Arians, who had relaps'd into their former Error, and proves that the Son of God was from all Eternity. He Justifies the Terms which are us'd by the Nicene Council in their Creed, and says, The word Consubstantial, has a very good sence, and that there is none more proper to express a formal Condemnation of the Error of the Arians: And he adds moreover, that this word is not new, since Theognostus, Denys of Alexandria, Denys of Rome, and Origen have us'd it long before the Council of Nice; that this Synod had not establish'd any new Doctrine, but confirm'd that which was approv'd by Scripture and Tradition. He observes, that in Matters of Faith, its Decisions did not run in the same manner as those that were made about the Celebration of Easter, when this Phrase was us'd, It pleases us, we will have it so; for now they only say, This is the Catholick Faith; Ita credit Catholica Ecclesia.

The Second Book of this Nature, is a Letter to the Bishops of Egypt, which is improperly called, The First Discourse against the Arians. There he describes the Outrages which the Arians committed against the Catholicks, and exhorts his Brethren to shun their Snares: He warns them by no means to Subscribe their Confession of Faith, how Catholick soever it may appear to them, but to adhere to that of the Council of Nice, in which the Impiety of Arius was condemn'd. Then he recites the principal Heads of his Errour, and refutes them by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture. He describes the miserable End of this Heretick; and concludes with an Exhortation to the Catholicks to maintain the Faith unto Death; representing unto them, that he is not only a Martyr who suffers Death for re∣fusing to offer unto Idols, but also he that dies rather than betray the Truth.

The Letter to all the Orthodox Bishops was written about the same Time, and upon the same Subject: There he gives an Account of the violent manner of introducing George into the Church of Alexandria, and describes the Fury of the Arians, and the Damage the Church has suffer'd by them very particularly.

In the two Letters to Lucifer, he describes the Persecutions which the Arians set on foot against the Catholicks, and represents the lamentable State of the Church.

In the Letter to Serapion concerning the Death of Arius, he relates the Unhappy End of this Here∣tick, who perish'd in a Jakes the very Night before he was to be received into the Church. St. Atha∣nasius says, That he learn'd this Story from the Relation of Macarius, a Presbyter.

The Letter written by St. Athanasius concerning the Opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria, concerning the Trinity, may be numbred amongst his Historical Books, because it teaches us a very considerable Point of Ecclesiastical History, which we should not have known if St. Athanasius had not reported it there; namely, That Denys of Alexandria wrote against the Sabellians of Pentapolis, and that in Disputing against them, he made use of such Expressions, as would make one believe that he favour'd the contrary Error; That he was accus'd of this in a Synod held at Rome; That he wrote a Treatise to the Pope, entituled, A Refutation and Apology, wherein he defends himself and confutes his Adversa∣ries; and that he taught in this Book a Doctrine perfectly contrary to that of the Arians: All which St. Athanasius proves in this Treatise, by citing several Passages out of the Book of Denys of Alex∣andria.

The Letter of the Council of Alexandria, to those of Antioch, concerns the State of the Church of Antioch after the Death of Constantius, St. Athanasius and the other Bishops of this Council, advise the Church of Antioch to receive the Arians who expresly condemn their Error, to joyn themselves to Paulinus and those of his Party, to admit into their Communion those that held their Assemblies in the Old City, that is to say, those of Meletius's Party, without requiring any other Profession of Faith, but that of the Council of Nice. They give them notice, That there was no Creed made in the true Council of Sardica; they advise them to have no Disputes among themselves about the Hypo∣stases, since those who acknowledg'd Three in the Trinity, and those who own'd but One, were both of the same Judgment, and only differ'd in the manner of Expression.

St. Athanasius speaks after the same manner of the Reception of the Arians, in a Letter to Ruffinian, where he mentions the Decision of this Synod.

In a Letter to the Emperour Jovian, St. Athanasius and the other Bishops of Egypt, propose to him the Nicene Creed as the only true one: They say, That this contains the Faith which was maintain'd by many holy Martyrs, who are now with Jesus Christ, that it had never had any Adversaries, if the Malice of the Hereticks had not endeavour'd to corrupt it; but that Arius and his Followers intend∣ing to introduce a New Doctrine contrary to the Truth, the Council of Nice condemn'd it, and made a Confession of Faith to establish the Truth, and extinguish the Flame that was kindled by his Parti∣zans: That this Creed was prais'd and sincerely believ'd in all the Churches of Christ, till some Bi∣shops, having a mind to revive the Error of the Arians, began to despise it; and yet they did not openly declare themselves against it, but only in their Explications of it they reflected obliquely upon the Consubstantiality, and spoke Blasphemies against the Holy Spirit. After they have thus explain'd the Nicene Creed, they set it down, and tell the Emperour, That this is the only Creed to which we must adhere.

I say nothing of the Conferences of the Arians and St. Athanasius, because they contain little remarkable.

The Catholick Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Cilicia, and Phoenicia, was written, as well as the preceeding Letters, in the Name of the Synod of Egyptian Bishops, in which St. Athana∣sius presided. They Exhort the Bishops to whom they write, to separate themselves from the Arians, to act unanimously in the Defence of the Faith, and not to dissemble the Truth for Fear or Ambition; and to acknowledge the Divinity of the Holy Spirit: and at last they propose to them as a Badge and Test of the true Faith, these words, The Consubstantial Trinity.

The Letter to the Africans was written upon the same Subject in the Name of St. Athanasius, and 82 Egyptian Bishops; wherein they recommend the Faith of the Nicene Council establish'd by 318 Bishops, publish'd and receiv'd by all the World, because this Synod had follow'd the Doctrine, and manner of Expression us'd by the Holy Scriptures, and the Fathers.

In the Letter to John and Antiochus Presbyters, St. Athanasius rejoyces because he understood by their Letters written from Jerusalem, that a great number of Brethren were re-united in one and the same Communion; he reproves those that would trouble the Church by their Disputes about words, and wonders that any should dare to reprehend the Doctrine of St. Basil.

In the following Letter to Palladius, he commends him for being Orthodox, and approves of his staying with Innocent. He rebukes those Monks that would not obey St. Basil, but praises this Bi∣shop, saying he was the Glory of the Church, for he contended for the Truth, and taught those that needed Instruction, and none could be good Catholicks that had any Dispute with him. He adds, That he had written to his Monks to obey him as their Father, and that they were to blame for com∣plaining of him. Probably 'twas about the Question of the Hypostases, that the Monks had some Dispute with St. Basil.

After we have spoken of his Historical Works, let us now come to the Dogmatical.

The First of these, are the two Treatises against the Gentiles, whereof the Second is now entituled, Of the Incarnation. In the First of these two Books he Opposes Idolatry, and Establishes the Wor∣ship of the true God: he discovers the source of Idolatry, that it comes from the Corruption of Man's Heart, who being created after the Image of God, fell under the guilt of Adam's Sin, and inherited from him an unhappy Inclination to Sin, which the Will does very often follow, though it be free to resist it. From this Principle he concludes, in the first place, against the Hereticks, That 'tis not necessary there should be two Principles, or two Gods, one Good, the Author of Good; and another Evil, the Author of Evil. He refutes this Impious Opinion by Reason and Authority, and concludes that Sin is not a Substance, but that it entred into the World by the Fall of the First Man. He ob∣serves that this is the source of all Idolatry, that Men being faln from their first Estate do no longer raise their Heart and Spirit to things Spiritual, but fix them on things Terrestrial and Sensible. He re∣futes afterwards the different kinds of Idolatry, and shows that we ought not to Worship, nor Ac∣knowledge for Divinities, either the Gods of the Poets, or the World, or any part of it. After he has thus overthrown all kinds of Idolatry, he establishes the Existence and Worship of the true God: He demonstrates, that God may be known by the Light of Nature, 1. From our selves, that's to say, by Reflexion upon our own Thoughts, that he is neither Corporeal, nor Mortal. 2. From the Beauty of the Universe, which discovers the Existence of him as the Cause of it: Then he shows that this God is the Father of Jesus Christ, and that he created all things, and governs them by his Word.

The Second Treatise against the Gentiles, is that which is entituled, Of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; because there he treats of that Mystery. For explaining the Causes of it, he goes back as far as the Beginning of the World; and proves that it was not made by chance, nor fram'd of an Eternal Matter, but that God the Father created it by his Word. After this, he speaks of the Fall of Man, who being created after the Image of God, addicted himself to things corruptible and perishing, and so became the Cause of his own Misery and Corruption. He says, that the Fall of Man was the cause of the Incarnation of the Word; because God pitying Man, resolv'd to send his Son to Save him, and to give him the means of obtaining that Immortality which he had lost. Upon this Principle he founds the Necessity of the Incarnation of the Word; which he proves, First, Because the Son being the Essential Image of his Father, there was none but he that could render Man like to God, as he was before his Fall: 2. Because as the Word is the Reason and Wisdom of his Father, there is none but he can teach Men and undeceive them of their Errors. From the Causes of the Incarnation, he passes to its Effects, and after he has described the Graces which the Word has merited for Mankind by his Incarnation, he speaks of his Death; and shows, that he was to die as he did, by the Torments of the Cross, that by his Death he might conquer Death both in himself and us. Lastly, He proves the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by the wonderful Effects that follow'd his Death, and by the con∣tempt of Death wherewith it inspir'd his Disciples. After he has thus explain'd the Doctrine of Chri∣stians, he refutes the Jews and Pagans, the former by proving from the Prophets that Jesus is the Messias promis'd in the Old Testament; and the latter, from the Miracles of Jesus Christ, from the destruction of Idolatry, and the Establishment of the Doctrine of the Gospel; which, though con∣trary to the Lusts and Passions of Men, was entertain'd without difficulty, and in a little time by the greatest part of the World. He concludes these Discourses with an Advertisement to his Friend Ma∣carius, to whom they are directed, That he should have recourse to the Holy Scripture, which is the Fountain from whence these things are drawn; to which he adds this Remark, that for the better un∣derstanding of it, we should lead a Life like to that of the Authors of these holy Books.

St. Athanasius wrote but two Treatises against the Gentiles, for his other Dogmatical Treatises are either about the Trinity, or the Incarnation. The Four Discourses against the Arians are the chief of

his Dogmatical Works. In the First, which is call'd the Second, he convicts the Sect of the Arians of Heresie; for which end, he first makes use of an Argument which he employs against all Hereticks, which is the Novelty of their Sect, and the Name which it bears; Then he explains their Doctrine, and proves, that 'tis Impious, full of Blasphemies, and comes near to that of the Jews and Gentiles. Lastly, He refutes their Reasons, and clears up a great many difficulties which they propose against the Doctrine of the Church.

In the Second Treatise, which is the Third in the common Editions, he explains some of the Passages which the Arians alledge, to prove that the Son is a Creature, and insists chiefly upon that in Chap. 8. of the Proverbs, The Lord hath created me in the beginning of his ways, &c. He says towards the end,

That the Arians run a hazard of having no true Baptism; because to make this Sacrament valid, 'tis not sufficient to pronounce the words, but we must also have a right understanding of them, and a right Faith. He adds, That if the Baptism of other Hereticks who pronounce the same words, be null and void, because they have not a true Faith, 'tis to be thought, that we ought to give the same Judgment of the Baptism of the Arians, who are become the worst of all Hereticks.

These words of St. Athanasius shew, That in his time, those that had been Baptiz'd by Hereticks, were Rebaptiz'd in the Church of Alexandria, though they had been Baptiz'd in the Name of the Trinity.

In the Third Discourse, which is reckon'd for the Fourth, he proves, That the Father and the Son have but one and the same Substance, and one and the same Nature, and that they are one God only, though they be two distinct Persons. Afterwards he shows that all that is said of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures, which seems unworthy of his Divinity, should be applied to his Humane Nature, because Christ being a Person compos'd of the Divine and Humane Nature, the Properties of both these Na∣tures may be attributed unto him. At last, he examines a Question propos'd by the Arians, viz. Whether the Father begot his Word voluntarily or necessarily: To which he answers, That he begot him naturally and not by constraint, and so in this sence he begot him voluntarily, because he would beget him, though he could not but beget him.

In the last Discourse he refutes the Arians, proving that the Word is Eternal and Consubstantial to the Father, and the Sabellians, who deny'd that the Son was a Person distinct from the Person of the Father; and the Paulianists, who distinguish'd the Word from the Son of God, and the Paraclete from the Holy Spirit.

The Discourse upon the words of the Gospel of St. Matth. Ch. 11. My Father has given me all things, &c. contains a Refutation of that false Conclusion which the Arians drew from those words, by saying, That if the Father had given all things to his Son in time, so that there was a time when he had not all things, and by consequence he had not always a Supreme Empire over the Creatures, from whence it would follow, that he was not equal to the Father: To which St. Athanasius answers, That this Passage does not treat of the Absolute Power of God over his Creatures, but concerns the Mystery of the Incarnation. That the Father has given Mankind to Jesus Christ, as a Sick Person is left to a Physician for his Cure: That Man having sinn'd, and Death being the Punishment of his Sin, the Word became Man, and God gave all Mankind unto him, that he might heal them, and restore to them that Life and Light which they had lost.

In the Letter to Adelphius, St. Athanasius proves against the Arians, that we must worship the Word in the Person of Jesus Christ.

In the following Letter to Maximus, he shows, That Jesus Christ is truly God, and truly Man. The Titles of the Letters to Serapion, sufficiently shew what they treat about: Against those that say, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are Creatures. The Treatise against the Sabellians, is a Collection of pas∣sages out of Holy Scripture, which prove the Trinity of Persons and the Divinity of the Word. The design of the Treatise about the Union of the Humane Nature with the Word, is rather to prove the Divinity of the Son of God, than to explain the Incarnation. The Exposition of Faith, which is in the First Volume, P. 240. is an Explication of the Nicene Creed, concerning the Unity and the Incarnation. The short Discourse against the Arians, is a Writing of the same Nature. The Letter to Epictetus, is the principal Treatise of St. Athanasius, concerning the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, where he refutes the Error and the Arguments of those that maintain that the Flesh of Jesus Christ, was of the same Substance with his Divinity; That the Divinity was chang'd into the Humanity, or the Hu∣manity into the Divinity; That the Word had adopted a Body without being naturally united to it; That the Body was not assum'd in the Womb of the Virgin Mary; That the Divinity did suffer; or in a word, That the Word was a Person different from the Man. In short, He there refutes the foun∣dations of the Error of the Apollinarians and Eutychians, and the principle of the Error of the Nesto∣rians, by shewing, That Jesus Christ is one Person compos'd of a Divine and Humane Nature, where∣in all the Properties of those two Natures are found. He refutes the same Errors in the Books of the Incarnation against Apollinarius, in which he proves particularly against this Heretick, That Jesus Christ took one Humane Nature entire and perfect, That it was not destitute of a Soul, nor of Under∣standing and Will.

There are few Moral Treatises amongst the Works of St. Athanasius. The Epistle to Dra∣contius is one of the Chief. [This is rather concerning Discipline, tho' urg'd with Moral Argu∣ments.] Dracontius was a Monk that had been chosen Bishop: But, either because he was afraid of Persecution, or else because he thought himself unworthy to Govern a Bishoprick, he fled and hid himself, lest he should be oblig'd to take care of the People, of whom he had been ordain'd Bishop. St. Athanasius in this Letter, reproves his Pu••illanimity, and exhorts him to return to his Bishoprick. He represents to him, That his Conduct scandaliz'd many Persons; That being ordain'd Bishop, he was

no longer at his own disposal, but ow'd himself to those for whom he was ordain'd; That he was oblig'd to take Care of them, and that he should be answerable for the Salvation of those that should perish for want of Instruction; That he should improve the Talent that God had given him, and take Care of the Flock that God had entrusted him with; That if the Fear of Persecution made him flee from a Bishoprick, it was a great weakness in him; but if it was from any dislike of the Episcopal Function, 'twas an injurious Contempt of the Authority and Mystery of Jesus Christ; That he could not excuse himself, by saying, That he had Sworn or Vow'd to the contrary, since Jeremy and Jonas were oblig'd to do contrary to what they had resolv'd; and besides, That many Monks whom he names, had accepted of a Bishoprick, and that this Profession was no hinderance to their Ordination; That a Bishoprick was so far from being an occasion of Sin, as some would persuade Dracontius, that it would be rather a means to Sanctify him by his imitating the Apostles; That this State did not hinder, but he might still observe the Customs of the Cloyster: [You will be permitted, says he, being a Bishop, to fast, or to abstain from Wine: We have known Monks great Eaters, and Bishops great Fasters: We have seen Monks that drink Wine, and Bishops that drink none: Bishops for the most part live in Celibacy * 1.43, and we have seen Monks married: In a word, 'tis permitted to every one, in whatsoever State he is, to use such abstinences as he pleases.] He concludes, with exhorting him to return to his Bi∣shoprick before Easter, that his People might not be abandon'd, and oblig'd to Celebrate that Feast without him; and with earnest Entrea∣ties, that he would not hearken to their Counsels, that would hinder his Return: They would, says he, have Priests among themselves, Why then are they unwilling that the People should have Bishops?

In the Letter to Ammon the Monk; he refutes the Error of some Monks, who condemn'd the use of Marriage; and shows by the Scripture, that 'tis permitted, and that 'tis an Impiety to condemn it, tho' Virginity is a more perfect State, and deserves greater Rewards.

The Life of St. Anthony may be reckon'd among his Moral Writings, for it contains excellent Instru∣ctions for all Monks.

We must also place among the Moral Works of St. Athanasius his Homily of Circumcision and the Sab∣bath. There he treats of the Institution of the Sabbath, and thinks that the principal end of its Celebration was not merely to rest, but that it was Instituted to make known the Creator; that the Reason why 'tis abrogated in the New Law, and the Feast of Sunday establish'd in its room, is, because the first Day was the end of the first Creation, and the second was the beginning of the New: For the same Reason he believes that Circumcision was appointed on the eighth Day, to be a figure of that Regeneration which is made by Baptism.

Lastly, That I may say something of the Treatises of St. Athanasius upon the Holy Scriptures, the Abridgment of the Scriptures, is the most useful of them. There you may see in one view, an Enu∣meration of all the Canonical Books of the Old Testament according to the Catalogue of the Hebrews, which contains but 22; and he adds those that are not Canonical, but yet are read in the Church to the Catechumens, which according to him, are the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith and Tobit; with this Observation, That some plac'd the Books of Esther and Ruth amongst those which they esteem'd Canonical. In the Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, he places all those which we acknowledge at present. After he has given us these Catalogues, he makes a very faithful Abridgment of what is contain'd in every Book, and gives the Reason, why 'tis call'd by such a Name, and Discourses of the Author that wrote it. Afterwards, he gives a Catalogue of those Apocryphal Books which are of little or no use at all. He speaks particularly of the Four Gospels, their Authors, and the Places where they were compos'd; he treats in a few Words of the Greek Ver∣sions of the Old Testament, and at last, gives a Catalogue of some Books cited in Scripture that are lost. The Fragment of the 39th. Festival Letter is upon the same Subject, and it contains also a Cata∣logue of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, and of those that are useful, tho' they be not Canonical, which he distinguishes from these Apocryphal Books, that have been forg'd by He∣reticks; and here he follows the same Catalogue which is in the Abridgment: But, he adds to the number of these Books, that may be read to the Catechumens, The Doctrine of the Apostles, and the Book, entituled Pastor.

The Book to Marcellinus upon the Psalms is also of the same Nature. St. Athanasius, shows there the Excellency of the Book of Psalms, and relates the Subject of many of them, those that are Historical, and those that are Moral. He observes there, That the Book of Psalms, referrs to all the Hi∣stories of the Old Testament; That it includes all the Prophecies of Jesus Christ; That it expresses

all the Opinions which we ought to have, That it contains the Prayers that should be made, and com∣prizes all the Precepts of Morality: He observes, That there are some Psalms Historical, some Moral, some Prophetical, besides those that consist of Prayers and Praises; all which he distinguishes, and places in their proper Rank and Order. He shews, that the Psalms represent to every one of the Faithful, the State of his own Soul, that every one may see himself there represented, and may observe from the different Passions there express'd, what he feels in his own Heart, and that in whatever State any one is, there he may find Words suitable to his present Disposition, Rules for his Conduct, and Remedies for his Troubles. Wherefore he divides the Psalms according to the different Matters of which they treat, that every one may make use of them according to his Necessities, and accor∣ding to the different States that he falls into. He adds, That those who Sing, should be of a free and quiet Spirit, that the Melody of their Song, may agree with the Harmony of their Spirit. And last of all, He would not have any Words of the Psalms, which may appear simple, chang'd, under pretence of making them more Elegant.

The Treatise upon these Words of Jesus Christ, Whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Spirit, his sin shall not be forgiven him, neither in this World, nor in the other, is an Explication of this difficult place of Scripture, wherein he first observes, that Origen and Theognostus thought, That the Sin against the Holy Ghost, was the Sin of those who after they were baptiz'd, lost the Grace of Baptism by their Crimes. But St. Athanasius maintains, That this Explication is not Natural, because those that violate their Vows of Baptism, sin no more against the Holy Spirit, than against the Father and the Son, in whose Name Baptism is administred: And to shew that this Opinion of the Ancients, is not defensible, he observes, That these Words of Jesus Christ were address'd to the Pharisees who were never baptiz'd, and yet sinned against the Holy Spirit, by saying, That Jesus Christ cast out Devils in the name of Beelzebub: He adds, That if this Explication were admitted, it would give up the Cause to Novatus. He explains the Passage of St. Paul to the Hebrews, where the Apostle says, 'Tis impossible that those who were once baptiz'd should be renew'd again, which does not exclude, says St. Athanasius, Repentance after Baptism, but only a second Baptism. After he has rejected this Ex∣plication, he advances a New one of his own; and is of Opinion, That to sin against the Holy Ghost, is to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, by attributing to the Devil, as the Pharisees did, his most Di∣vine Actions. Thus he explains himself: Those, says he, who observing the Humane Actions of Jesus Christ, consider'd him as a Man only, were in some measure excuseable; Those also who observing his Divine Actions, doubted if he was a Man, were not so much to be blam'd: But those who seeing his most Divine Actions, deny'd his Divinity, by attributing his Actions to the Devil, as the Pharisees and the Arians do, commit so enormous a Crime, that they cannot hope for Pardon. The former sin against the Son of Man, i. e. against the Humanity of Jesus Christ; and the latter sin against the Spirit, i. e. his Divinity. This in short, is the sum of the Explication that St. Athanasius has given of these Words of the Gospel, whereof he treats, and I leave it to the Judgment of the Reader, if he can find another more probable than this of the Ancients.

We may add likewise to those Treatises of St. Athanasius, upon the Holy Scripture, the Fragments that are found at the end of his Second Volume, and particularly, that which is taken out of the Sixth Council, upon these Words of Jesus Christ, My Soul is exceeding sorrowful.

I shall make no Extracts out of those Books which I have rejected, as being none of St. Athanasius's, tho' there be some things in them which may be useful, because I would make no Confusion, by mix∣ing the Doctrine of another Author with that of this Saint, and therefore without staying to speak of these Books, I proceed to his Character.

His Stile cannot be better describ'd than 'tis already by the Learned Photius, in Vol. 140 of his Bibliotheque.

The Discourses of St. Athanasius, says he, are clear, simple and natural, and yet they have much strength and gravity: He places the Reasons which he uses in a wonderful Light; He shews great copiousness of Invention, and a wonderful easiness of Thought. There is in his Works, a Depth of Logick, I do mean of that barren Logick which proposes Reasonings and Syllogisms, without any Ornament, and makes use of Dialectical Terms as School-Boys do, who would make a show of Wit; but of a Logick like that of the ancient Philosophers, who propos'd their Idea's and Reasonings in an excellent manner, accom∣panied with great Ornaments of Eloquence. He makes use also of Testimonies of the Holy Scrip∣ture, and draws from thence convincing Proofs of what he advances. In a word, His Books alone are sufficient for the Refutation of Arianism, and he that should say, That St. Gregory and St. Basil drew from this Fountain those great Torrents of Learning which they employ'd against this Error, would not be much mistaken

The same Photius says also in another place, speaking of the Letters and Apologies of this Father,

That they are written with Clearness, Elegance and Grandeur; That he has given a turn at once persuasive and agreeable to all that he says.

This Character appears chiefly in his Apology to the Emperour Constantius, which is a Master-piece in its kind, for never any Book had a greater Air of Candor and Simplicity than this, never was any Discourse more Elegant, more beautified with Figures, or more persuasive: Here was St. Athanasius's great Excellency in all his Works; they appear simple and open, and yet being closely consider'd, one may perceive, that they are compos'd with wonderful Artifice: He observes all along an admirable fitness of Expression, and always adapts his Stile to the Subject of which he treats, and to the Persons to whom he speaks. He insinuates himself so dextrously into the mind by his manner of expressing things, that one enter∣tains his Reasons, and feels himself often persuaded by them, before he is aware. How soft soever his Discourse appears, it wants nothing of sharpness; for when he attacks his Enemies, he spares them not in the least, but on the contrary, uses the most smart and emphatical Words that can be found to cover them with Confusion; and to render them Odious, he makes no scruple to load them with

the reproachful Names which they have deserv'd, and to represent the Crimes they have committed, in the most lively Colours that can be drawn with a Masterly Hand: And yet he does it after such a manner, that it seems rather to proceed from a Zeal for the Truths of Religion, than from any Personal hatred which he bears to the Men themselves. The Conduct of this Saint is no less admirable than his manner of Writing. St. Basil gives this Character of him in his 48 Letter, address'd to himself.

Who can be found, says he, That has more Prudence than you? Who has a clearer Inspection into the Affairs of the Church, and who has a greater Facility in executing his Designs? Is there any that has more Charity and Compassion for his Brethren? Are not you the Bishop in all the World, that is in most Veneration with those of the West? And in the following Letter he has these Words; The more the Miseries of the Church encrease, the more are we oblig'd, says he, to have recourse unto you; we have no hopes of any Consolation under our Afflictions but by your means, since you can do much, both by your Prayers which are very Effectual, and also by the sharpness of your Wit, whereby you understand at the same time what is most advantageous to the Church.

And again in another Letter,

When we consider our Calamities, and the State to which we are reduc'd, we do almost Despair of Safety; but when we cast our Eyes upon you, we take Courage, and con∣sider you as a Physician whom God has given to heal all our Maladies. Who can be a fitter Pilot in this Tempest, than he who has all his Life time endur'd the like Persecutions for the Faith?

And truly, 'Tis hard to say, which of the two is most to be admir'd in St. Athanasius, his unmoveable Constan∣cy and Firmness, which he always show'd, or the Prudence that appear'd in his Conduct under all his Per∣secutions. I say nothing of his Humility, his Charity, Pastoral Vigilance, and his other Vertues, because they don't fall directly within the Compass of that Design which I have propos'd to my self in this Book.

His Doctrine is very pure, and his Opinions are not only very Orthodox, but his Expressions are very just and exact. He proves the Existence of a God, the Creation of the World, and Providence, in his Books against the Gentiles. He establishes the Trinity of Three Divine Persons, and the Unity of the Nature and Substance, almost in all his Works; but he explains this Mystery with much simplicity; for he would not amuse the Reader with Disputes about Words, nor search too profoundly into this Matter. He confesses, That he cannot comprehend it, and he will not employ humane Reasonings to Prove or to Explain the Mystery of the Trinity and the Generation of the Word: In short, He shuns as much as he can, to enter upon any of those subtile Questions, which have since unprofitably exercis'd the Wit of so many School Divines. He speaks admirably of the Fall of the first Man, of the Punishments of Sin, of the Necessity and Effects of the Incarnation of the Son of God. He explains this Mystery in such a manner as is equally contrary to all the Errors of the Hereticks of either side; for he teaches against the Paulianists, That the Word is united to the Humanity; against the Valentinians, That it took a Body like ours in the Womb of the Virgin; against the Arians and Apollinarians, That it took a Soul and Spirit; against the Nestorians, That the Divinity is united in the same Person with the Humanity, so that the Virgin may be called the Mother of God; against the Eutychians, That these two Natures subsist in the same Person with their Properties, without Confusion, without Mixture, without Change. He believes, That the Soul is Spiritual and Immortal, and makes no scruple to af∣firm it as a thing certain, That the Saints are happy and with Jesus Christ. He speaks of the Efficacy of Baptism, and rejects that of the Hereticks: He acknowledges not only in his Apology, but also in his Treatise of the Faith, cited by Theodoret; He acknowledges, I say, in both places, That the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ * 1.44 He praises Virginity, and pre∣fers it to Marriage, tho' he thinks, that 'tis not forbidden. He condemns the Error of the Novatians; He acknow∣ledges the Holy Scripture to be the Rule of Faith, and joyns

with it Tradition and the Authority of the Holy Fathers. He observes that the Faith is always the same, and that it does not change, and that the Councils do nothing but declare what is the Doctrine of the Church. He attributes much to Free-Will, and yet he confesses, that since the Sin of Adam Man is enclin'd to Evil, and fix'd upon sensible things. He teaches, That the Soul of Jesus Christ, without dissolving the Union to his Divinity, descended into Hell, to fetch thence the Souls of the Just, and also of those who had liv'd well under the Law of Nature, who were there in Sorrow wait∣ing for their Deliverance. As to what concerns Discipline in his time, one may observe in his Works, That the Communion in both kinds was then given to the Laicks; That the Priests only Consecrated; That the Eucharist was offer'd upon an Altar of Wood; That the Mysteries were hid from the Catechu∣mens and Gentiles; That the Faithful assembled in Churches, where they were a long time at Prayers; That there were then a Multitude of Monks that were subject to their Bishop as their Father, and that some of them were made Bishops; That there were also Virgins who religiously kept their Virginity; That they were not shut up, but assisted at the Divine Mysteries in the Church; That there were Priests and Bishops married, though but few; That Eunuchs could not then be ordain'd; That the Translation of Bishops was condemn'd; That the People and Clergy chose them, and other Bishops ordain'd them; That they must be chosen out of those that were born in the place, rather than Strangers; That they had a Reverence for Churches and Sacred Vessels; That Churches were dedicated with Ceremonies, and that 'twas not permitted to celebrate Divine Mysteries in them before their Dedication, without some kind of Necessity; That there were Fonts in Churches, and that the Bishop had a Chair rais'd on high, call'd the Episcopal Throne; That Oyl and Wine, and Bread for Offerings were kept in the Font; That they had Coemeteries where they assembled in case of Necessity; That the Churches there were govern'd by Priests, who kept there the Assemblies of the People; That the Bishops made their Visitations in their Dioceses; That the Church of Rome was consider'd as the First; That the Church of Alexandria had much Authority over all Egypt; That they us'd to make the sign of the Cross, and believ'd that it drove away Devils; That they receiv'd not the Offerings of the Impious, but only those of the Just; That a Bishop was not allow'd to abdicate his Church; That they Fasted in Lent; That they celebrated the Feast of Easter with great Solemnity; That they us'd the Prayers of the Church, and read the Gospel in the Vulgar tongue, which was understood by the People. I shall not stay to relate the Principles of Morality which are to be found in his Writings, because they are but few, and those few are not handled in their full extent, excepting only what concerns flight from Persecution, and from a Bishoprick, and the Defence of the Truth.

The First Editions of St. Athanasius's Works are very imperfect, and the Last are confus'd. The most Ancient that we have found, is a Latin Edition of some Books, which one Barnabas Celsanus printed at Vicenza in the Year 1482, and which he Dedicated to Peter Brutus a Bishop. This Edi∣tion is entituled, Treatises of St. Athanasius against the Hereticks, and it contains the Four Treatises against the Arians, that of the Union of the Humane Nature, together with the Dispute against Arius, which was also printed in 1500.

This Edition was follow'd by that of Paris in 1520, which contains a good part of the Works of St. Athanasius in Latin, translated by different Authors, together with the Commentaries of Theophy∣lact upon the Psalms, which were also publish'd under the Name of St. Athanasius, by Christopher Persona, who caus'd them to be printed at Rome in the Year 1477, [in fol. and afterwards in 1496. in fol.] and by Reuchlin at Tubing, in the Year 1515.

These Discourses were reprinted at Francfort by Knobulchus in 1522, and at Basle by Froben in 1527. Eustachius Cornecef Printer at Cologne, printed them in 1532, without the Commentary of Theophylact upon the Psalms, and they were also printed the same Year at Lyons by the Treschels.

After these, Episcopius and Froben undertook a new Edition of the Works of this Father: They were assisted by Nannius Professor at Louvain, who made a new Version of the most part of the Books which bear the Name of St. Athanasius, and compar'd the Greek with three Manuscripts. They di∣vide the whole into Four Tomes, and place in the last some Discourses attributed to St. Athanasius, which had not been translated by Nannius: This Edition was finish'd at Basle in 1558, and reprinted in 1564.

Nivelle added a Fifth Tome, wherein he put the Life of St. Anthony, the Five Dialogues of the Trinity publish'd by Beza at Basle in 1570. This Edition was printed twice at Paris, and the Letter to Ammon, in the Year 1572, and in the Year 1581.

Hitherto we have said nothing of publishing the Greek Text of the Works of St. Athanasius. Commelinus, a famous Printer at Heidelberg, first undertook it, which he happily finish'd in the Year 1600; and the same Year he publish'd in Greek and Latin, over against one another, all the Works of St. Athanasius in two Volumes, whereof the First contains those that were translated by Nannius, and the Second all that could be found besides. The Greek Text is revis'd by many Manuscripts, and printed very exactly. He took care also to add at the End, the different Readings collected by Flec∣mannus; but these are only in some Copies. This Edition, though very large, is very confus'd; for the Books are without any order, without any Observations, and many times the Version is very faulty.

It was a little while after corrected by Fronto Ducaeus, and printed at Paris without the Greek in 1612, but he has left many Faults.

At last in the Year 1627. the Booksellers of Paris made a New Edition Greek and Latin of the Works of St. Athanasius. They follow'd Commelin's for the Greek, and that of 1612, for the Latin; and though they say in their Advertisement that they have exactly revis'd the Greek Text by the Ma∣nuscripts in the Royal Library, and have corrected an infinite number of places in it, yet they have still left a good number of Faults behind. They have added in this Edition the Greek of the Life of

St. Anthony, which was publish'd before by Hoeschelius in 1611, a Homily upon Easter, publish••d by Plantin at Antwerp, in 1508, the Homilies of Holstenius, and some other Fragments: But they have neither chang'd the Order of the Books, nor distinguish'd the Genuine from the Supposititious.

What I have now said, sufficiently discovers the Necessity that some very Skilful Person, or rather, some Religious Society, should undertake to publish a New Edition of the Works of St. Athanasius. And to make it perfect, they must compare the Greek Text exactly with Manuscripts, make a new Version of all the Books, distinguish the Genuine from the Supposititious, and make a separate Vo∣lume of these Last, dividing the First, as we have done, into Four Parts: The First should compre∣hend the Historical Books; the Second, the Dogmatical; the Third, the Moral; and the Last, those upon the Scriptures. In the Historical, they must observe the Order and Thread of the History; in the Dogmatical, they must keep the Order of the Subject Matters; and in those upon the Scripture; they must first place those that are more general, following very near the Order which we have ob∣serv'd in our Abridgment. As to the Supposititious Books, 'twere good to distinguish them into three Ranks: The First, should contain the Books of ancient Authors unknown; the Second, those of Modern Authors; and the Third, those whereof the Authors are known, unless you would rather pass by the Last, and remit the Reader to the Books where they are printed, [with the other Works of those Authors to whom they do of right belong.]

Notes

• a 1.1

  At Alexandria.] He was a Clergy-man of this Church, and the Clergy were commonly of that Place where they discharg'd their Office; but besides this Conjecture, 'tis plain also that he was originally of Alex∣andria by the Letter of Constantius, who recalling him from his Exile, says that he would restore him to his own Country, &c. Apol. 2. p. 769, 770. and he takes his Country and Church for the same thing. Orat. 1. contr. Ar.
• b 1.2

  Of his Kindred.] The Greek Author of his Life, who is very late, says that they were very noble and of great Piety; but he gives us no Name, nor cites any Author to warrant his groundless Assertion: His Aunt was a Catholick, and died during the Tyranny of Gregory, Ep. ad Solit. p. 817. You may see in a Latin Letter of this Saint related at the end of Lucifer's Works, that du∣ring his Persecution, he had not the Liberty to see his Parents, which may be understood of his Father and Mother, according to the proper Signification of the Latin Word.
• * 1.3

  St. Athana∣sius.
• c 1.4

  But only that he learn'd it of his Fathers.] In his Letter ad Solitar. p. 855. I heard from my Fathers, that the Persecu∣tion was rais'd under Maximian Grandfather to Constantius.
• d 1.5

  Rather for a Fable than a Truth.] 1. This Story of Chil∣dren baptiz'd by Athanasius, does not at all agree with the Discipline of the Church of Alexandria upon the Subject of Rebaptization, and 'tis a thing unheard of that it should be approv'd of, or that any could ap∣prove a Baptism of this Nature, as Alexander of Alex∣andria is suppos'd to have done. 2. It does not agree with the Age of St. Athanasius, for Alexander was not ordain'd Bishop of Alexandria, according to the Testi∣mony of St. Jerom, until the Year 321. and St. Atha∣nasius being ordain'd Bishop in 326. was not, in this Interval, of an Age to play such little Pranks. And though it were suppos'd, against the Authority of St. Jerom, that Alexander was ordain'd in 315, this would not remove the Difficulty; for it cannot be said, that St. Athanasius play'd at this Sport when he was above 10. or 12. Years old, from whence it would follow, that he was ordain'd Bishop at the 25. or 27th. Year of his Age, which is not very probable.
• e 1.6

  In the Beginning of the Year 326.] Alexander died five Months after the Council of Nice, and St. Athana∣sius succeeded him immediately. St. Epiphanius says in Haeres. 68. and 69. that Achillas was chosen by the Catholicks after the Death of Alexander, and Theonas by the Melitians, and that Athanasius was ordain'd three Months after: But all this Story is fabulous, be∣cause Achillas was Bishop of Alexandria before Alexan∣der, and all Historians testify that St. Athanasius suc∣ceeded Alexander immediately; and St Athanasius says as much expresly in his 2d. Apology.
• f 1.7

  Or rather Melitians.] Their Leader is call'd by all the Ancients 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and never 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.8

  For having sacrific'd to Idol••.] St. Athanasius testi∣fies, that this was the Occasion of the Schism of Meli∣tius, which is much more credible than what St. Epipha∣nius reports to be the Origin of this Schism, after a fa∣bulous manner, being deceiv'd by the Memoirs of some Melitians.
• h 1.9

  A Year and some Months in Exile.] Theodoret B. II. Ch. I. says, that he was there two Years and four Months, but he is mistaken; for he was sent into Ba∣nishment at the End of the Year 336, and was restor'd again June 15, 337. before the Sons of Constantine had taken upon them the Title of Emperors.
• i 1.10

  Withdrew to Rome in the Year 341.] Baronius makes him go in the Year 339, and supposes he was twice there; but Valesius has very well prov'd, that he was but once there, since he mentions but one Voyage. When he withdrew, he had only heard of the Ordina∣tion of Gregory, and the Persecution which was prepa∣ring against him and his Church, as he himself says in these Words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k 1.11

  Till the Month of January 342.] For so it must be read in the Letter of Julius, and not as Baronius thought.
• l 1.12

  In the Church of Vito the Presbyter.] So the Words of Julius must be understood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are ill-tran∣slated in these Words, In the Church where Vito the Presbyter assembled them: For he did not assemble the Bishops but the People, according to the common Phrase, colligere Populum, to hold a publick Assembly of their People in the Church. St. Irenaeus says, qui praeterquam quod oportet colligunt, which is spoken of Schis∣maticks, who made Assemblies out of the true Church.
• m 1.13

  Towards the end of the Year 341.] Valesius thinks that the Council of Rome was not held till the Year 342, after the Return of the Legates: But Julius says plainly, that the Bishops of Italy met at the Day ap∣pointed, and that the Legates were detain'd a long time after till the Month of January, in the Year 342.
• n 1.14

  They determin'd nothing particularly about his Restau∣ration.] Julius and St. Athanasius say expresly, that he was only assur'd of that Communion which had been granted him, and that his Enemies complain'd of no∣thing else.
• o 1.15

  He wrote them a long Letter.] Valesius thinks that this Letter was written by the Council, but that cannot be; for the Pope's Legates were return'd when it was written, and they were detain'd in the East after the Day appointed for the Council, as we have already no∣ted. It does not at all appear by this Letter, whatever Valesius says, that the Legates were return'd when it was written: On the contrary it is evident that the Council was held on the Day prefix'd, and that the Legates were then in the East. And therefore to recon∣cile these things, it must be said, that the Letter was written after the Council, although by Order of the Council, which had charg'd Julius to write his Decisi∣on, and to answer the 1st. Letter from the Eastern Bishops, but not the 2d, which was not yet arriv'd.
• p 1.16

  Retir'd into a Desart.] Sozomen and Ruffinus say, that he was hid in a Cistern, but Athanasius says, that he retir'd into a Desart, and continued there ever after.
• q 1.17

  At the City of Antioch, where they held a kind of a Synod.] 'Tis commonly thought that this Synod was held at Alexandria: But Valesius has well observ'd, that the Beginning of the Letter shows, that it was written by the Bishops, deputed from the Provinces of Egypt, who were come to Antioch, where the Emperour was at that time.
• r 1.18

  In the Year 373 of Jesus Christ.] Proterius Bishop of Alexandria, places the Death of St. Athanasius in this Year, in a Letter to St. Leo; and St. Jerom says, that Peter of Alexandria was chosen the same Year. These Authors are more credible than Socrates, Ruffinus and St. Cyril, who place it in the Year 371.
• s 1.19

  The next Work of St. Athanasius, after these two Treatises, is his Apologetick.] This was compos'd imme∣diately, after his Retiring. Which he did with a De∣sign to speak it in the Presence of Constantius: But un∣derstanding the Mischiefs he had done to those that favour'd him, he thought it not safe to come near him. His two Apologies and his Epistle to those that lead a Monastick Life, were written after this, where he speaks with much Sharpness and Freedom against Con∣stantius, particularly, in his Letter to those that lead a Monastick Life.
• t 1.20

  He wrote also the same Year, Two Letters.] I say that these Two Letters were written a little while after the Enthroning of George, though I know Baronius is of Opi∣nion, that the 1st. was written a long time before, when Gregory seized upon the Church of Alexandria, and that the 2d. was written in 361. but this Opinion is not defensible. As to the 1st. Baronius was deceiv'd by the Version, where he found sometimes the Name of Gregory, and sometimes that of George; but this Con∣fusion is avoided in the Greek, where one may always find the Name of George, when mention is made of him that came to intrude into the Church of Alexandria: But that which can never be answer'd, is, That Gre∣gory is mention'd there as one that had been condemn'd, long ago, and was no more. See the Place, p. 948. For after all the Churches in the World had anathematiz'd Gregory, whom the Arians had formerly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made Bishop; yet the same Arians presently sent George thither. Here you see how Gregory and George are well distinguisht. We may add to this Authority, That the Circum∣stances related in this Letter agree with the En∣thronizing of George, and not at all with that of Gregory. It may be alledg'd for the Opinion of Ba∣ronius, 1. That 'tis said in the Letter, Philagrius the Governour of Egypt introduc'd him, who is there spoken of, and 'tis very well known, that Phila∣grius carried Gregory to Alexandria: But I cannot see why he might not as well be employ'd to conduct George thither likewise. 2. 'Tis alledg'd, that 'tis said in the Letter, that he who was sent to Alexandria by the Arians, was ordain'd by Eusebius; and Eusebius was certainly dead in George's time: But 'tis easy to answer this Difficulty, for 'tis not in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Eusebians, which is the Name that St. Athanasius commonly gives to his Persecutors. St. Athanasius seems to say, that he was at Alexandria when this Trouble happen'd; but 'tis well known, that he was out of the City when George came thither, since he with-drew before Easter, and George did not thrust himself into those Churches till that time. To which I answer, That Athanasius does not say, that he was at Alexandria, when George arriv'd there, but only when Philagrius publish'd the Edict against him. Lastly, 'tis objected, that 'tis said towards the end of this Letter, that they would have a Council assembled at Rome in the preceeding Year; but the Roman Church, say they, was not then in a Condition to have assembled in the Year 356, because Liberius was then in Exile. A•…•…. This Objection is easily destroy'd, for Liberius and the other Bishops of Italy had many times desired the assembling of a Council. 1. By their Legates sent to Milan in 354. 2. In 355. before Liberius went from Rome: And, 3. When he was come to Court: St. Atha∣nasius therefore might say truly in 356, that those of Rome had desired a Council the Year before. The Let∣ter to the Egyptians was written before George arriv'd at Alexandria, for there he is mention'd as one ready to be sent thither, p. 290. and he is describ'd as one that was not yet known to the Egyptians. There Ce∣crops is mention'd as a Bishop alive; but he was swal∣lowed up by an Earthquake which destroy'd Nicodemia in 358. There Liberius and Hosius are mention'd with Commendation, who fell away in 357. Baronius ob∣jects Two Things to prove that it was not written till 360. 1st Because it is said there, that it was now 36 Years since the Arians were declar'd Hereticks: 2dly, because mention is made in it of a Creed which they would have sign'd; but we read of none, that there was at this time. In Answer, to the 1st. Objection it may be said, that the Figures are wrong, or rather that we must count the 36 Years from the 1st. Synod held by Alexander against the Arians. 'Tis more easy to answer the 2d. by saying, That the Arian Bishops might make a Creed when they sent George; besides that, Athanasius says onely that he heard say, they had made one, and not that they had done it. Be it as it will, this 1st. Treatise against the Arians is a Letter to the Bishops of Egypt, which has nothing of Affinity with the Subject and Matter of the other Four: The Ora∣tion that follows begins as a new Discourse, and St. Cy∣ril cites a Passage out of the 3d. Book of Athanasius concerning the Trinity, which is found in that which is now call'd the 4th. and Theodoret cites one taken out of the Second, which is now in the 3d. Treatise.
• u 1.21

  The Book of Synods was compos'd in 359.] This is evident, because he does not finish the History of the Council of Ariminum, concluding with the Nomination of the 1st. Deputies which were sent to the Emperor; and at the End he adds the Letter of Constantius, and the generous Answer of the Bishops, which he had learn'd afterwards. He speaks always of that Council as a thing present, and with Commendation; and he says nothing more of what pass'd at Constantinople after the Council of Seleucia. This Book is probably that which St. Jerom says, St. Athanasius had Written against Ursacius and Valens, unless we should rather say, that it was a Work subjoin'd to his Letter to those that lead a Monastick Life.
• x 1.22

  As well as that which is directed to the Africans.] This is to the Bishops of the Western Africa, and not to those of Cyrenaick, as Baronius thought, who says, that these Letters were written under the Pontificate of Damascus.
• y 1.23

  And the Letter to Epictetus was written last.] He observes in this Letter, that Auxentius and the other Arians, were anathematiz'd by the Councils of France, Spain and Rome. St. Cyril says that it was corrupted, but that which we now have, agrees with that which is related by the Emperor.
• z 1.24

  Which gives just cause to suspect them of Forgery.] Yet there is some Doubt, of some of those Works which are mention'd in this Place; but the Conjectures which are alledg'd have little Solidity. Some have doubted of the Letters to Serapion, but these are written in the Stile of St. Athanasius. The two which are in the 2d. Volume, are an Abridgment of the 2d. which is in the 1st. Volume. The Exposition of Faith which is in p. 240. of the 1st. Volume, is cited by Facundus, B. XI. Ch. 6. The Treatise of the Union of the humane Na∣ture is cited by Theodoret in his 2d. and 3d. Dialogue; And so it cannot be deny'd, that it is St. Athanasius's, especially since it has his Stile, although the Author of St. Athanasius's Life affirms the contrary. The 2d. B. of the Incarnation against Apollinarius is no ways doubtful; but the 1st. is call'd in question, which is more obscure and less methodical: Yet Leontius B. II. against Eutyches, cites the 2d. under the Name of the 2d. Trea∣tise of St. Athanasius against Apollinarius. The Letter to Marcellinus about the Interpretation of the Psalms, is in all Probability that which St. Jerom and Cassiodorus call a Treatise of the Titles of the Psalms, because it contains the Subject and Argument of every Psalm. The Epistle to Serapion of the Death of Arius, is cited by the Ancient Historians. The Homily of the Sab∣bath and of Circumcision is not wholly of St. Atha∣nasius's Stile, but the Difference is very inconsiderable. Some have doubted of the Tract upon these Words, Who∣soever shall speak Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; but unjustly, for this Tract has not only the Stile of St. Athana∣sius, but also is prov'd to be really his, because Gobarus in Photius Cod. 232, testifies, that St. Athanasius had many times cited Theognostus, who is not found cited but in this Book, and in the Treatise of the Judgment of Denys of Alexandria. And, Lastly, because the Treatise which we now discourse of, is cited in the Council of Lateran, held under Martin the 1st. in the Year 549. I think we ought not to reject the Conferences of St. Athanasius with the Arians before Jovian. 'Tis certain that St. Athanasius came to find out this Emperor; and Philostorgius says, that the Arians came to accuse St. Athanasius in his Presence. Moreover, they are writ∣ten with great Simplicity, and appear to be very An∣cient. Scultetus doubts of the Letter to Ammon, be∣cause it preferrs Coelibacy to Marriage, alledging that St. Athanasius taught the contrary in his Letter to Dra∣contius: But he was mistaken. The Fragment of the 39th. Festival Epistle ought to be receiv'd as undoubt∣edly his, after St. Jerom's Testimony, who says, that St. Athanasius wrote those Letters which bear his Name. I say the same of the Abridgment of the Holy Scripture, which is upon the same Subject with this Festival Epi∣stle, and has the same Opinions of the Canonical Wri∣ters. Some doubt of this last Treatise; 1. because the Author calls Lucian, who was a Ring-leader of the Arians, a holy Martyr. 2. Because he does not reckon the Book, entituled Pastor, among useful Books, as St. Athanasius does in his 39th. Letter, and in his Book of the Nicene Synod. But 'tis easy to answer these Conjectures. As to the 1st, That St. Athanasius did not think that Lucian was of the same Opinion that Arius had after∣wards, or that knowing he died in the Bosom of the Church, he thought that he ought not to condemn him: Or Lastly, that he cited him as commonly he had been accustom'd to cite him. As to the 2d. That he says nothing of the Truth of the Book entituled Pastor, but neither does he reject it as a wicked Book, and by Consequence there can nothing be built upon this Con∣jecture.
• aa 1.25

  St. Athanasius always took this Word, rather to signify the Nature, than to denote the Person.] The Council of Nice seems to have taken the Word Hypo∣stasis in this Sence, when it condemns those who say, that the Word is another Hypostasis, or Substance. St. Athanasius says often in his 5th. Oration, that the Fa∣ther and the Son are one Hypostasis only; and in his Let∣ter to the Africans, That the Hypostasis is the Substance. In short, though the Synod of Alexandria was persua∣ded that this Difference concern'd not Matters of Faith, yet they approv'd more the Opinion of those who take Hypostasis for Nature.
• bb 1.26

  The Book of Virginity.] This Book is written in a low Stile, and contains Precepts about the Quality of the childish Clothes of Virgins: There are in it Expres∣sions unworthy of St. Athanasius, as when he calls a Virgin, the Dancer of Jesus Christ. Theodoret, B. II. of his Hist. Ch. 4. cites a Passage out of a Book of St. Athanasius address'd to Virgins, which is not to be found in this Treatise; which shows that this is not the genuine Treatise of St. Athanasius.
• cc 1.27

  The Life of St. Syncletica.] 'Tis cited as St. Athana∣sius's by Nicephorus Callistus, and there is a Manuscript of it which bears his Name; but in another 'tis ascri∣bed to a Monk named Polycarp, which is very likely to be true: For the Stile is unworthy of St. Athana∣sius. It is full of childish Comparisons, which are to be met with almost in every Period, and agree much bet∣ter to a Monk, than to St. Athanasius.
• dd 1.28

  The Life of St. Anthony has better Authority.] 'Tis alledg'd against this Life, to prove that it is not St. Athanasius's, that this Saint relates the Death of Bala∣cius, after another manner than it is related in this Life: For St. Athanasius says, in his Epistle to those that lead a Monastick Life. That the Letter of St. Anthony was written to Gregory, who gave it to Balacius; whereas in the Life of St. Anthony, it is said, that this Letter was address'd to Balacius himself. 2dly, 'Tis reported in the Life of St. Anthony, that Balacius was killed by Nestorius the Governour of Egypt's Horse, who accompanied him: Whereas St. Athanasius says, that the Horse upon which Balacius rode, did bite him: But these Differences are of little Consequence, and the same Author may relate differently such kind of little Circumstances, either through the Fault of his Me∣mory, or because he is better inform'd at one time than another. The Difference of Stile which is to be met with, between this Letter and the other Works of St. Athanasius, gives us more Trouble: But it may be that he proportion'd his Stile in this Life, both to the Matter, and the Capacity of the Monks for whom he wrote it. This is certain, the Ancients do testify, that St. Athanasius wrote the Life of St. Anthony, and all that they report of it, is found to agree with what is said in that Book which we now have. See St. Chrysost. Homil. 8. on Matth. St. Austin in his Confessions, Pal∣ladius Hist. Laus. Ch. 8. Socrates Lib. I. c. 17. and Lib. IV. c. 14. All which makes me think, that 'tis not convenient to reject it.
• ee 1.29

  The Creed which bears the Name of St. Athanasius.] The Reasons that convince me that this Creed is none of St. Athanasius's, are these. 1. Because 'twas not known till the Sixth Century. 2. Because St. Athana∣sius never would make a Confession of Faith, nor a Creed, being persuaded he ought to keep to that of Nice. 3. Because this Creed rejects so plainly the Errors of the Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites, that 'tis easy to perceive, 'twas made since those Hereticks, on purpose to reject their Errors. 4. The Stile and Terms do plainly show, that this Creed was made by a Latin, and not by a Greek, Author. 5. No Account can be given, upon what Occasion, at what Time, and for what Reason, St. Athanasius should make this Creed. See Vossius in his Book De Tribus Symbolis. 6. It appears by the Terms, that 'twas the Work of a La∣tin Author. 7. 'Tis not found among the ancient Manuscripts of St. Athanasius. 'Twas made since the Council of Chalcedon, as the Reasons we have now given do clearly prove. 'Tis cited in the Council of Autun, in the Year 670, and there we read in the Fourth Council of Toledo, in 633, some Phrases which seem to be taken out of this Creed. But it must be confess'd, that this last Council does not say, That they were taken out of the Creed of St. Athanasius, and that there is no certainty, that this Canon of the Council of Autun, where mention is made of St. Athanasius's Creed, is so ancient, as we have said, since it is not found a∣mong the Canons of that Council under Leodegarius; but in a Collection of those Canons taken out of the Library of the Monastery of St. Benignus of Dijon. Hincmar and Abbo, who liv'd about the Tenth Century; Radul∣phus, Haimo, Hugo, and some other Ancient Frenchmen have cited it as St. Athanasius's. The Greeks also, as Manuel Calecas, Lib. 2. have made no scruple to ascribe it to him. Pitheus thought that a Frenchman compos'd it, because the French Authors were the first that ex∣presly cited it: and perhaps some Frenchman did draw this Creed, partly from the Council of Toledo, and put the Name of St. Athanasius to it. Father Quesnel is of opinion, that 'twas the Work of Vigilius Tapsensis, and it must be confess'd, that his Conjectures are very pro∣bable: For, 1st. This Author has forg'd many Books under the Names of the Fathers, and particularly under the Name of St. Athanasius. 2. In all his Writings he opposes the Nestorians and Eutychians, and this Creed attributed to St. Athanasius, is directly against the Er∣rors of those Hereticks. 3. The same Vigilius made several Confessions of Faith under the Name of St. Atha∣nasius. 4. The First part of the Creed seems to be a Recapitulation of the Chapters of Vigilius Tapsensis's Book against Vurimadus: and even in the Third Book, the Three first Chapters contain these Propositions, Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus; Dominus Pa∣ter, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus; Omnipotens Pater, Omnipotens Filius, Omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus, which are word for word in the Creed. These are the Conjectures of Father Quesnel, to which one may adhere so much the rather, while there is nothing to be had more certain about this Matter. Be it as it will, 'tis cer∣tainly the Work of a Latin Author, which has been since translated into Greek, which is the reason why the Greek Copies differ among themselves.
• ff 1.30

  The Dispute against Arius.] 'Tis evident that 'tis not a Conference-made in the Council, but only a ficti∣tious Dialogue made by some body, under the Names of St. Athanasius and an Arian, and not of Arius; for the Catholick says, That his Adversary is a Monster come out of the Sect of Arius. The Author of this Dialogue is so ignorant, that he thinks the Council of Nice was held in the Year 310.
• gg 1.31

  The Letter of Liberius to St. Athanasius, and the An∣swer of this Saint to Liberius.] These Letters neither agree with St. Athanasius, nor with Liberius: The last to St. A∣thanasius is so written, as if there were some doubt of his being a Catholick: He requires him to Anathema∣tize Arius and Sabellius, that I, says he, may obey your Commands. The Letter of Liberius and the Answer of St. Athanasius, are written as if they were Confessions of Faith, and they favour the Error of Nestorius. The Stile of these two Letters is Childish and mean. The Letter attributed to Liberius, begins with a Then.
• hh 1.32

  The Explication of these words of Jesus Christ, Go to the Village that is over against you, and there ye shall find a Colt tied.] This Homily is a Fragment of some Commentary upon the Gospel. It is not the Stile of St. Athanasius. He explains all the passages of Scripture in a mystical sence, and draws from thence Allegories, which have more of subtilty than solidity. It is very different from the Air of St. Athanasius, which is grave and serious; and besides, he generally interprets the Scripture in its natural sence.
• ii 1.33

  The Homily upon the Passion.] This also is not written in the Stile of St. Athanasius; for though it be some∣thing more Sublime than the former, yet it comes not near the Gravity of this Father's Stile. There are ri∣diculous things related in it of the Fear of Christ. 'Tis said, that he counterfeited the Fear of Death, lest the Devil should not withdraw, and that when the Devil heard him cry out, Eli, Eli, he had the boldness to attack him: But on the contrary, St. Athanasius in his Fourth Dialogue against the Arians, does expresly deny that Jesus Christ counterfeited any Fear, and assures us, that as Man he was really afraid. The Author of this Homily disallows all Oaths, whereas St. Athanasius ap∣proves them upon several occasions.
• kk 1.34

  And that upon the Seed.] Or rather upon the Action of the Disciples, who ate the Ears of Corn upon the Sabbath-Day. 'Tis found only in one Manuscript, and it has nothing excellent, nor is it written in the Stile of St. Athanasius.
• ll 1.35

  The Seven Dialogues of the Trinity, are not St. Atha∣nasius's.] 1. The Author speaks there of an Addition made by the Council of Constantinople to the Nicene Creed. Annon & vos fidei Nicenae adjecistis? says the Heretick, and the Catholick answers, Sed non ipsi pugnan∣tia. 2. He explains the Six Epithets given to the Holy Spirit by the Council. 3. He treats there of subtle Questions about the Trinity, which were not started in the Time of St. Athanasius. 4. He opposes Eunomius and Macedonius, whom St. Athanasius did never parti∣cularly attack. 5. The Author of the Dialogue ac∣knowledges Three Hypostases in Jesus Christ. 6. The Stile is wholly different from that of St. Athanasius. There are cited indeed in the Lateran Council under Martin the 1st. Secret 6. Three Testimonies of St. Athanasius; and the 3d. under this Title, In sermone Athanasii qui per modum Interrogationis & Responsionis cum Apollinario fit; which Title agrees well enough with these Dialogues: But what is here related, is no where to be found.
• mm 1.36

  Father Combefis has restor'd them to Maximus.] In the Greek Manuscript which Beza us'd, 'tis observ'd on the Margin, This Dialogue is not St. Athanasius's, but some say 'tis Maximus's. Two other Manuscripts of Rome and Venice, and that of Dufresne, attribute it to Maximus. Gregorius Protosyncellus, Veccus, Acyndinus, Demetrius, and some other modern Greeks, cite it often under the Name of Maximus, and seldom under that of St. Athanasius. It appears by the Stile and by all the Arguments in that Author, that these Seven Dia∣logues are by one and the same Hand; and the Autho∣rities which we have alledg'd, do plainly show that they ought to be attributed to Maximus.
• nn 1.37

  Garnerius has nothing to support this Opinion but some slight Conjectures.] He has no Manuscripts, nor Citations from the Ancients. All that he says to prove it, is, 1st. That Theodoret writ against the Arians, the Eunomians, the Macedonians, and the Apollinarists, as he testifies in many Places of his Works. 2. That the Doctrine, the Expressions, and the Reasons of this Author resemble those of Theodoret, and this Au∣thor denies as well as he, that the Holy Spirit pro∣ceeds from the Son. These Conjectures are very slight, when there are no Manuscripts for him; for it may so happen that Two Authors, writing upon the same Principles, may agree very near in these Things; besides the Resemblance of the Stile is not so great as Garnerius would have us believe. The Proofs which he brings to show that this Treatise is none of Maximus's are not of any greater Weight: He says this Book was written before the Creed of Ephesus, because there is no Mention in it of the Nestorians and Eutychians: That from Maximus's Time the Question was no longer trea∣ted of de Genito & Ingenito: That there is no Proba∣bility, that Maximus should dispute against the Ano∣maeans, without opposing the Eutychians, and Monothe∣lites. 'Tis easie to confute these Conjectures, by say∣ing, that Maximus in these Books disputed against the ancient Heresies, and that he sufficiently oppos'd those of his own Time in his other Books.
• oo 1.38

  The Questions to Antiochus, and those that follow them, are yet later.] In these Questions to Antiochus, the Author cites many Writers more modern than St. Athanasius, as Gregory Nyssen in his 8th. The Au∣thor of the Book ascribed to St. Denys, Ibid. St. Epi∣phanius Question 3. And many others in other Places. They have nothing of the Stile of St. Athanasius, and the Author in many Places is of a contrary Opinion: In short, in Athanasius's Time, those kind of Questions that were more Curious than useful, were not suffer'd. The Questions that follow about the Explication of some Doubts upon Places of Holy Scripture, and the other anonymous Questions are by the same Author as the preceding, and are only a Collection of Passages, taken out of St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Climacus, St. Maximus, which are sometimes recited under their Names. The Author of these Questions calls the Occidentalists by the Name of Franks, and says that the Romans are a Nation of the Franks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Which plainly discovers that they were compos'd by the Modern Greeks, after the Empire of the West came to the Franks. The modern Greeks have made many such Collections, which they have put forth un∣der the Name of ancient and famous Fathers.
• pp 1.39

  The Passage of a Letter to Eupsychius.] Theo∣doret and the Council of Chalcedon cite a Letter of Atticus of Constantinople Successor to St. Chrysostom, di∣rected to Eupsychius. St. Athanasius mentions one Eupsychius Bishop of Cappadocia, Orat. 1. against Ar. But the sixth Council says, that the Eupsychius men∣tion'd by him was a Priest of Caesarea.
• qq 1.40

  The Eleven Books and the Conference of Arius and S. Athanasius, belong to Vigilius Tapsensis.] It has been ob∣serv'd long since that these were the Works of a Latin Author, who wrote long after S. Athanasius. Sirmondus first discover'd that they were written by Vigilius Tapsen∣sis. This he observ'd in his Notes upon Theodolphus of Orleans, where he says, that these Two Books are found in an ancient Manuscript, together with the Books of this African Bishop against Nestorius and Eutyches, in which he testifies himself that he compos'd these Dialogues under the Name of St. Athanasius.
• rr 1.41

  To the Popes Marcus and Felix.] 1. The Author of this Letter to Marcus, uses the Words of the Epistle to Felix. 2. The Author of this Letter places the Perse∣cution against St. Athanasius, which happen'd in 355, under Liberius, Nineteen Years after the Death of Pope Marcus. 3. This Letter is compos'd of Passages of Authors who liv'd since St. Athanasius, as St. Leo, Atticus, St. Cyril, St. Celestine, &c. 4. He says, that there were Eighty Canons of the Nicene Council, Forty Greek and Forty Latin, which is a manifest Falshood. 5. He adds, that he reduc'd them to Seventy, that there might be as many Canons as there were Disciples of Jesus Christ, and Languages in the World; which is the Heighth of Impertinence. 6. The Stile is very different from that of St. Athanasius, and is of a Latin Author. 7. In 336, when this Letter is suppos'd to be written, St. Athanasius was in Gaul, and conse∣quently could not write from Alexandria. In a Word, the Letter is dated the 1st. of December, and Marcus died the same Year, in the Beginning of November. The same Reasons, prove that the Answer could not be written by Marcus, for 'tis dated about a Month af∣ter his Death. The Letter written to Felix has as many Marks of Falshood. 1. St. Athanasius never com∣municated with this false Pope. 2. It has not the Stile of St. Athanasius, but of a Latin Author. 3. 'Tis compos'd of Passages taken out of St. Innocent, Celestine, the Roman Council, & Adrian. 4. When Felix was chosen, St. Athanasius lay conceal'd, and could not then assem∣ble a Synod. The Answer of Felix is compos'd of Pas∣sages out of the decretal Epistles forg'd by Isidore, and of Testimonies out of the Fathers; and the Date of the Consuls is false.
• ss 1.42

  The Relation of the Passion of the Image of Jesus Christ in the City of Berytus.] Sigibert in his Chronicle, relates this Story at the Year 765, and so the Treatise which he cites cannot be St. Athanasius's. I shall give a short Account of the Story; and leave the Reader to judge whether it be fabulous or no. 'Tis said, that a Christian having over-against his Bed an Image of Je∣sus Christ which was of his natural Bigness, removing out of his Lodging, forgot it in the Lodging where it was, though he knew that Jesus Christ gave it to Ni∣codemus, who left it to Gamaliel, and that from Ga∣maliel it pass'd to St. James, and from St. James to Si∣meon, and from him to Zachaeus, and so it pass'd from Hand to Hand till the Destruction of Jerusalem: That a Jew having hir'd the House where this Image was, for some time did not perceive it; but having invited some of his Friends to eat with him, they discover'd it, and after that, all the Jews assembled together to beat it, and one of them having pierc'd it with a Lance, there came forth Blood and Water, which wrought A∣bundance of Miracles. The Title of this Story says, that it happen'd under Constantine and Irene. 'Tis re∣lated also in the 2d. Council of Nice, and 'tis said, that it made the Fathers of the Council to weep.
• * 1.43

  [St. Athanasius's Words are these, Many Bishops never mar∣ried, and Monks have been Fa∣thers of Children. (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 958. D. Vol. 1.) As these Words are translated, they have quite a different meaning from that which was at first designed by St. Athanasius. He makes his Comparison between those that practised, and those that omitted the Austerities there mentioned, in such a manner as shews that he thought them absolutely indifferent; and besides, there is a great difference between many and the most part. Yet I should not have taken notice of it, if in his account of St. Athanasius's Doctrine, Mr. du Pin had not repeated what he had before observed in this place, and with some Additions; for there he says, That there were Priests and Bishops married, tho' but few. Here is a double mistake; for neither does St. Athanasiu's say, that there be but few Priests or Bishops married, nor does he speak a word of Priests. Monks were not constantly Ordain'd in those days. St. Anthony, their great Master, was a Lay-man, and in this very Letter to Dracontius, St. Athanasius, amongst other Arguments to persuade him to accept the Bishoprick to which he was Canonically Elected, tells him, That if the Monks desired to have Presbyters among them, to Instruct them in their Duty, they ought not to envy others, who for the same Reason were earnest to have Dracontius for their Bishop.]
• * 1.44

  [That is to say, St. Athanasius calls the Bread the Body, and the Wine the Blood of Christ: He had no occasion to Dispute the Question, nor to determine of either side, concerning the Real Presence. This is plain from his Second Apology to the Emperour Constantius, for his Flight, wherein he clears himself from the Crime that was laid to his Charge in the Synod of Tyre, That he abetted one Macarius a Presbyter in Mareotis, who broke the Cup in which the Wine was usually Conse∣crated: The Council of Alexandria, that was call'd to examine the Cause of St. Athanasius, in their General Epistle, always call the Cup, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Mystical Cup: and speaking of Presbyters, (p. 732. ap. St. Athana. Vol. 1.) say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; it belongs to you alone first to drink of the Blood of Christ; that is, to receive before the Congregation: This determines nothing as to the Nature of the Presence; and our Saviour had sufficiently warranted such Expressions by his Discourse in the sixth Chapter of St. John. If St. Athanasius had said any thing to declare his Opinion, upon a Question at that time not started in the World, his Arguments could have been considered, and his Notions might have then been known: But since all his Writ∣ings bend to one scope, from which he hardly ever wanders any occasional Expressions relating to other Disputes, can∣not be urg'd any further than as they do in all probability shew what was the Stile of that Age; and it is certain, That the Elements were after Consecration, call'd, the Body and Blood of Christ, at that time; as well, they might, since the Church then believ'd, what our Church likewise professes, That worthy Communicants do Spiritually eat the Body, and drink the Blood of Jesus Christ, when they eat the Bread and drink the Wine in the Lord's Supper. Mr. Du Pin, takes a great deal of Pains in his First Volume, to Vindicate the Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice, from the imputation of Arianism: And he observes all along, That before those Questions were professedly Examined and Determined by the Church, Men did not speak so exactly as they did afterwards: His Observati∣on is certainly right, and it has always been the receiv'd Excuse, whenever the Opinions of these earliest Fathers have been urg'd on the behalf of the Arian or Socinian Doctrines. If therefore this Excuse be just in one Cause, it is equally so in another; and an occasional Expression can no more be urg'd in Favour of Transubstantiation, than in Favour of Arianism, when we otherways know, what was the Opinion of that Age, in which the Question was never put concerning it. There will be no necessity therefore to take notice in every place, where our Author fansies, that the Ancients favour'd his Cause, of the particular Reasons, why they spoke in such a manner, or of the Sence in which their Words are to be understood; since it has been so often prov'd by those who have examined all the contested Passages in the Writings of these more Ancient Fathers, that either they favour our Opinions, or that they speak nothing to the purpose of the Dispute that has so long been managed between us and the Church of Rome.]