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.

HILARY the Deacon.

HILARY of Sardinia, Deacon of the Church of Rome, was deputed by Pope Liberius, toge∣ther with Lucifer Bishop of Calaris, and the Priest Pancratius, to go to the Emperour Con∣stantius, * 1.1 after the Synod of Arles, in the Year 353. He was banish'd after the Council of Milan, and afterwards he join'd with Lucifer's Party, whereof he was one of the most zealous Defenders. 'Tis this Hilary, who is call'd in St. Jerom's Dialogue against the Luciferians, The Deucalion of the World, because he would Regenerate and Renew by a Second Baptism, those that had been baptiz'd by Hereticks.

Tho' there has been no Book printed under the Name of this Hilary, yet the Learned have attri∣buted to him the Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, which bears the Name of St. Ambrose, and the Questions upon the Old and New Testament, which are at the end of the 4th. Tome of St. Austin. These are the Reasons which have mov'd them to attribute to him the Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles. First, St. Austin in Ch. 4. of the 4th. B. to Boniface, cites under the Name of St. Hilary an Explication of this Passage of St. Paul. 'Twas from him that all Men sinn'd, which is taken Word for Word out of this Commentary. Now this Hilary whom St. Austin quotes, could neither be Hilary of Syracuse, nor St. Hilary of Arles, since they were after St. Austin. No more can it be said, that the Author of these Commentaries was Hilary of Poictiers, because the Stile and the Version which he makes use of, are no ways like to the Stile and Version of these Commentaries, and there are some Opinions in the one, which are different from those in the other. This Commentary therefore cannot be attributed to any but this Hilary of Sardinia. Besides, the Time and Circumstan∣ces agree wonderfully to him; for he says on Ch. 3. of the 1st. to Timothy. That tho' all the World was God's, yet the Church whereof Damasus at present was Governour, is call'd his House. Which plainly shows, that this Commentary was written by one Well-affected to the Church of Rome, who liv'd in Damasus's time: And therefore it cannot with any reason be attributed to Remigius of Lyons, but most probably was written by this Hilary whom we now speak of.

Yet Petavius thinks that it cannot be attributed to him for Two Reasons; First, because this Au∣thor speaks in favour of Damasus, and 'tis not likely that a Man engag'd in the Luciferian Schism which favour'd Ursicinus, should acknowledge Damasus lawful Bishop of Rome. Secondly, because upon Chap. 1. of the 1st. Epistle to the Corinthians, he blames the Novatians and Donatists who rebaptiz'd, and says, that to believe that the Grace of Baptism depended upon the Persons who gave it, was injurious to the Baptism of our Saviour. Now the principal Errour of Hilary the Deacon, ac∣cording to the Testimony of St. Jerom, consisted in this, That he would have those Re-baptiz'd who had been baptiz'd by the Arians. This objection cannot be answered, but by saying, that this Hilary did at last return into the Bosom of the Church under the Pontificate of Damasus; but this supposition is contrary to the Testimony of St. Jerom, who says in his Book against the Luciferians, that this Dea∣con died out of the Church. This Man, says he speaking of Hilary the Luciferian, being dead, his Sect ought to dy with him, because he being but a simple Deacon, could ordain no Person to succeed him. Wherefore it must be granted that we have no absolute certainty, that this Book belong'd to this Hi∣lary of Sardinia.

The Commentary upon the Two First Chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is an Extract out of the Commentary of St. Chrysostom, which is not made by the same Author as that upon the other Epistles.

'Tis thought that the Questions upon the Old and New Testament which have been formerly printed under St. Austin's Name, in his 4th. Tome, were written by the same hand as these Commen∣taries. To prove it, 'tis said, first, that the Author of these Questions liv'd at the same time as the Author of the Commentary, for he says in Qu. 44. that he wrote 300 Years or thereabouts, after the Destruction of Jerusalem, and he speaks of Photinus as an Author then living. He speaks also of the Devastation of Pannonia which happen'd in 351, and the Famine of the Year 363, as Calamities which happen'd in his time. Secondly, 'tis thought, that he speaks in Qu. 115. of Sardinia as his own Country: And in short, some maintain that there is so great an agreement both in Stile and Doctrine between these Two Treatises a 1.2, that it cannot be doubted but they are written by the same Author. Which must be understood of the 47 Questions upon the Old Testament, the 50 upon the New, and the 36 upon the one and the other which are all written by the same Author, and not of the other following Questions, which are for the most part a repetition of what had been said in those that went before.

But whoever was the Author of these Questions they are full of Falfities and Errors b 1.3, and almost all of them are of very little use. The Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul is better done, and has more sence in it: It is clear, plain and litteral, and gives the meaning of the Text of St. Paul well enough; but it gives very different Explications from St. Austin c 1.4, in these places which concern Pre∣destination, Provocation, Grace and Free-will.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hilary the Deacon.
• a 1.2

  There is so great an Agreement both in Stile and Do∣ctrine, &c.] Compare Quest. 7. with the Commen∣tary upon Ch. 6. to the Ephesians; Quest. 13. with Comment. upon Ch. 5. to the Rom. Quest. 18. with Comment. upon Ch. 9. to the Rom. Quest. 21. with Comment. upon Ch. 6, and 11th. of the 1st. Ep. to the Corinth. Quest. 23. with the Comment. on the 7th. Ch. of the Ep. to the Rom. Quest. 24. with the Comment. up∣on the 1st. Ep. to the Corinth. Ch. 11. Qu. 113. with the Com. upon Ch. 1st. of the Ep. to the Ephes. and on Ch. 1st. of the Ep. to the Coloss. Qu. 47. with the Com. upon the 2d. Ch. of the 1st. to the Corinth. and upon Ch. 5. of the 2d. to the Corinth. Qu. 99. with the Com. upon Ch. 10. of the 1st. to the Corinth. Qu. 102. with the Com. upon Ch. 11. of the Ep. to the Rom. and upon Ch. 2d. of the 2d. to Timothy. Qu. 108. with the Com. upon Ch. 3. to the Philipp. the Qu. 109. and 25. with the Com. upon Ch. 8. to the Rom. Qu. 112. with the Com. upon these Words: I see another Law in my Members, &c. Qu. 113. with the Com. upon Ch. 2d. of the 2d. Ep. to the Thessalonians. Qu. 134. with the Com. upon Ch. 3. of the Ep. to the Ephes. and Qu. 115. with the 1st. Ch. of the Com. upon the same Ep. These two Authors make often use of the same Words and in the same Sence; as, Diffidentia, to signify Incredu∣lity, and the Words, Praevaricandi, Meliorandi, &c.
• b 1.3

  Full of Falsities and Errors.] A Catalogue of them may be seen in the Censure which the Doctors of Lo∣vain have prefix'd to this Work; one of the chief of them is their Opinion, that Melchifedeck was the Son of God.
• c 1.4

  Different Explications from St. Austin.] For this one needs only read almost all the places of St. Paul, which concern Predestination or Grace. Particularly the Commentaries upon the 5th. and 9th. Chapters of the Ep. to the Romans, upon the 2d. of the Ep. to the Philippians, and the Questions, 13, 24, 47, 115, 223, where he proposes Maxims which are a little Pelagian.