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.

DIODORUS Bishop of Tarsus.

DIODORUS a Priest and Monk of Antioch, the Scholar of Silvanus of Tarsus, Master of St. John Chrysostom, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, after he had acquir'd a great Reputation in * 1.1 Antioch by his Conduct and Prudence, was Ordain'd Bishop of Tarsus in the Year 375. While he was yet but a Priest, he took care of the People of Antioch, in the absence of Meletius who was then banish'd under the Reign of Valens, and maintain'd the Orthodox Faith in this Church. After he was Bishop, he was present at the Council of Constantinople, and was one of those that were chosen to take care of the Eastern Diocess. He was very skilful in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and wrote Commentaries upon almost all the Books of the Bible. He was one of the first Commen∣tators that apply'd himself to a litteral Explication, without amusing himself with Allegories. He was highly esteem'd of by all the great Men of his Age, who wrote very obliging Letters to him, and have given very Authentick Testimonies of his Doctrine and his Piety. One part of these Letters may be seen in Facundus Ch. 3. of his 4th. Book. But in the following Ages Men did not give so fa∣vourable a Judgment of this Man's Doctrine, for he was accus'd of Teaching in his Writings the Er∣rors of Nestorius, as they were afterwards call'd. It may be for this Reason that none of his Works are preserv'd. We have nothing but a very considerable Extract out of his Treatise of Destiny, pro∣duced by Photius in Volume 223 of his Bibliotheca, and the Argument of another Trearise of the Holy Spirit produced by the same Person in Volume 102. Theodoret also in his Commentaries upon Genesis Quest. 20. p. 22. and Quest. 21. p. 25. produces two other Fragments of this our Diodorus.

St. Basil in Letter 167 speaks of Two Books of this Author's writing against the Hereticks, whereof the Second was compos'd by way of Dialogue. St. Jerom mentions his Commentary upon St. Paul. Socrates and Sozomen assure us, that he made Commentaries upon almost all the Books of the Bible. Leontius in his Third Book quotes a Book of this Author written against the Sunousiasts, that is, against the Apollinarists. Suidas has given us a Catalogue of his Works taken out of Theodorus, which is as follows.

An Explication of all the Old Testament, of Genesis, Exodus, and upon the Psalms, and upon the Four Books of Kings, upon the Chronicles, upon the Proverbs; a Treatise of the Dif∣ference between Allegory and Contemplation; a Commentary upon Ecclesiastes, upon Canticles, up∣on the Prophets; a Chronicle wherein he has corrected some Faults of Eusebius; Commentaries upon the Four Gospels, upon the Acts, upon the Epistle of St. John; a Treatise to prove that there is but One God in the Trinity; a Book against the Melchisedecians, a Treatise against the Jews con∣cerning the Resurrection of the Dead, one of the Soul against several Errours; a Treatise of De∣stiny against the Astrologers, where he speaks of the Globe of the World, and of Providence; and a Treatise wherein he proves that Invisible things were made at the same time with the Elements, tho' they were not made of them; a Tract to Euphronius, by way of Question and Answer, against Aristotle's System.

He says nothing in this Catalogue of the Book of the Trinity, nor of the Trea∣tise against the Apollinarists.

The Treatise of Distiny was divided into Eight Books and 53 Chapters. There he refutes all the Follies of Judicial Astrology, and shows that the World had a Beginning and was Created, that Man was endow'd with Free-will, that God was not the Author of Evil, and that the World is govern'd by Divine Providence. Photius makes a particular enumeration of the Subject of each Chapter in this Work, wherein he produces some part of his Reasonings. He had reason to ridicule the Pro∣position which this Author had advanc'd, That the Heaven was not round, supposing that if it were so, the Astrologers would have some good Ground for their Opinion of Fatality: For as he observes, the Figure of the Heaven has nothing in the World to do with this Question.

Photius observes, that the Stile of this Author is pure and clear; but St. Jerom says, that it is not lofty, and that he could never reach the Eloquence of Eusebius Emisenus, tho' he endeavour'd to imitate it, because he was not skill'd enough in humane Learning. Facundus who quotes this Pas∣sage of St. Jerom says only Eusebius, without adding Emisenus. Now if one should thus read the Text of St. Jerom, it would be more convenient to understand the Writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, whom Diodorus rather imitated than those of the Bishop of Emesa, because the Works of Diodorus have no great relation to his Books, whereas they had a great affinity to those of Eusebius of Caesarea, either for the Matters which he treated of, or for the Manner or Stile wherein he treated of them. For the Ex∣tracts which Photius has produced out of his Treatise of Destiny, are very like to some Books of the Evangelical Preparation or Demonstration of Eusebius of Caesarea. The Judgment which St. Basil has given of this Author's Stile may be seen in Letter 167, of which we have given an Abridgement in St. Basil's Life. As to what concerns his Doctrine of the Incarnation, we could better judge of it, if we had his Books; but there is no great probability, that one who was prais'd, esteem'd and cherish'd by Meletius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Epiphanius, and even by St. Athanasius, and his Successors Peter and Timothy of Alexandria; who was also consider'd in a General Council as one of the most Learned and most Orthodox Bishops of all the East; and in short, who was Master to St. Chrysostom, should be guilty of so gross an Errour as that of Nestorius. 'Tis true that he had for his Scholar Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and that he was Accus'd of the same Errour with Nestorius; and that he was Condemn'd as Convicted of this Errour after his death in the 5th. Council. But besides that there have been some Persons who have undertaken to justify him: Yet if it should be granted that he was guilty of this Errour, it would not follow that he learn'd it of his Master, since we day∣ly see Heretical Disciples, who have had Orthodox Masters. Should not the Faith of St. Chrysostom, rather serve to justify Diodorus, than the Errour of Theodorus to condemn him?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Diodorus. Bishop of Tarsus.