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. EPIPHANIUS.

ST. EPIPHANIUS was born about the Year 332, in a Village of Palaestine, near the City of Eleutheropolis, and pass'd his Youth in the Monastick Discipline with St. Hilarion, Hesychius, and * 1.1 other Monks of Palaestine. He tells us (Heresy 26.) that he was like to have been surprized by the Hereticks called Gnosticks, but God of his mercy preserved him. He was chosen afterwards about the Year 366 Bishop of Salamis the Metropolis of the Isle of Cyprus. In this place he acquired very great Reputation for his Ability and Piety; and happy had it been for him if he had not been engaged to∣wards the latter end of his Life in the Dispute of St. Jerom and Theophilus against the Origenists, which disturbed his Repose, and created him a great deal of trouble. This Dispute begun in the Year 391, between St. Epiphanius and John of Jerusalem. He accus'd this John of maintaining the Errors of Origen; and going into Palaestine, he Ordain'd Paulinianus, the Brother of St. Jerom, Deacon and Priest, in a Monastery which was not under his Jurisdiction. John of Jerusalem complained imme∣diately of this Action of Epiphanius, which was contrary to the Canons and the Discipline of the Church. St. Epiphanius maintains what he had done in a Letter which he wrote to John of Jerusa∣lem, produced by St. Jerom. This Contest farther exasperated their Minds, which were already very much embitter'd upon the Subject of Origen; both the one and the other endeavour to engage Theo∣philus of Alexandria on their side. This Bishop, who seem'd at first to favour the Party of John of Jerusalem, at last declared against Origen, condemned his Books in a Council held in 399, and perse∣cuted all the Monks that were suspected to favour his Memory. These Monks being persecuted, with-drew to Constantinople, where they were well enough received by St. John Chrysostom: Which so enraged Theophilus, that from that time he conceived a Mortal hatred against St. Chrysostom, as plainly appeared by his following Actions. Nevertheless Theophilus desiring to strengthen his Party, acquainted St. Epi∣phanius with what he had done against Origen, and sollicited him to do the same thing. This Saint who had a great aversion to this Author, assembled a Council in the Year 401, in the Isle of Cyprus, wherein he caus'd the Reading of Origen's Books to be condemned, and wrote to St. Chrysostom to exhort him to do the same thing: But he not approving of this Proposition, St. Epiphanius came himself to Constan∣tinople, by the persuasion of Theophilus, to cause the Decree of the Council of Cyprus to be put in execution there. Socrates and Sozomen tell us, That before he entred into the City, he Ordain'd a Deacon in a Church depending upon the Jurisdiction of Constantinople. Cardinal Baronius thinks that these two Historians are mistaken, and that the Ordination of Paulinianus made by Epiphanius in Pa∣laestine, in a place depending upon John of Jerusalem, gave them occasion to think, that St. Epipha∣nius had Ordain'd a Deacon in the Diocess of St. John Chrysostom. Howsoever this be, St. Epiphanius being come to Constantinople, would not hold communion with St. Chrysostom, and also did all that lay in his power to procure from the Bishops that were then at Constantinople, an approbation of the Sentence of the Cyprian Council against Origen; but he found but very few willing to Sign the Condemnation of one that died in the Communion of the Church, upon so slight Grounds, and others refus'd to approve his Sentence. St. Epiphanius not being able to compass his Design by these means, resolved to be present the next day in the Church of the Apostles, and there with a loud Voice, be∣fore all the People, to condemn the Books of Origen, and all those who defended them. But when he was in the Church, St. Chrysostom advertis'd him by his Deacon Serapion, that he went about a thing that was against the Ecclesiastical Laws, and which would expose him to great danger, for it was to be fear'd, that the People would make some Sedition, of which he himself being the Author

could not complain, after he had been forewarn'd of it. This consideration put a stop to St. Epi∣phanius's undertaking, who was so transported against Origen, that when the Empress Eudoxia, had recommended to his Prayers the younger Theodosius who was seized with a dangerous Sickness, he caus'd this to be told her for an answer, That the Prince her Son should not die, provided she would shun the conversation of Dioscorus and the other Defenders of Origen. The Empress being surprized with this Answer, which she did not expect, ordered him to be told, That if God would take away her Son, she would submit to his Will, That it was in his power to take him away as he had given him to her, but it was not in the power of St. Epiphanius to raise him again from the dead, since he suf∣fered his Archdeacon to die a little while ago. The heat of St. Epiphanius was a little abated, after he had spoken to Ammonius and his Companions, whom Theophilus had driven away for Origenism, for those Monks gave him to understand that they maintain'd no heretical Doctrine, and that he had condemned them with too much precipitation. Whereupon he departed immediately to return to Cyprus, and 'tis said that being ready to embark, he told the Bishops that conducted him to the Ship. I leave you the City, the Palace, and the Theatre. He died by the way, or soon after his Return in 402, or 403.

The Books of St. Epiphanius are First of all, his great Work of Heresies, entitled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that's to say, an Apothecary's-Shop, or Repository of Remedies, which is divided into three Parts.

The First contains the Heresies before Jesus Christ, which amount to 46; The Second contains 23 of them, and the Third 11 of them, so that this Book contains in all, the History of 80 Sects or Here∣sies, the Catalogue of which may be seen.

The Letter written to two Monks serves for a Preface to the whole Work, and for an Answer to a preceeding Letter of those two Monks, wherein they had desired St. Epiphanius to set down in writing what he knew concerning Heresies. He seems to have begun this Book in the Year 374, and ended it about the Year 376. In it he not only gives an Account of the History, and the Errors of the Sects and Heresies he writes about, but he also refutes them as well as he could, and employs one part of his Discourse in establishing the Doctrine of the Church.

The Second Work of St. Epiphanius is his Anchoratus, so called, because it is a sort of an Anchor to which the Faithful may adhere. In it he explains the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Myste∣ry of the Trinity; he proves the Resurrection, and refutes the Errors of the Pagans, the Mani∣chees, Sabellians and Arians. This Book was compos'd for the Christians of Pamphylia before the foregoing Book, as appears by the Preface, where it is noted, that he wrote it in the 10th. Year of the Emperour Valens, which is the Year 373.

After this Book followed his Anacephalaeosis, or Recapitulation, which is an Abridgment of his great Book of Heresies.

In the Treatise of Weights and Measures, having explained the signification of the different Notes that are to be found in the Greek Bibles, he gives an Account of the Weights, the Measures, and the Money of the Jews, and other Nations. In this Book he gives a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, according to the Canon of the Jews, which comprehends the Books of Ruth and Esther, and he writes the History of the Greek Versions of the Text of the Bible. He is of Opi∣nion, that the Lxx Interpreters, translated all the Books of the Bible, and that they made this Ver∣sion in separate Cells, being all inspir'd of God to compose it after the same manner. There is much Learning in this Treatise.

The Physiologus is a Treatise of a very particular Design, wherein he relates the true or false Properties of many Animals, and draws from them some Moral Reflections, good and bad, as well as he could.

The Treatise of the Twelve precious Stones, which were upon the Pontifical Garments of the High-Priest of the Jews, is an Historical Explication of the Names, the Figures and Properties of those precious Stones. This Book has been cited by St. Jerom, in his Epistle 228 to Fabiola, and Anastasius has made an Abridgment of it, which goes also under the Name of St. Epi∣phanius.

The Book of the Life and Death of the Prophets, is a Collection of an infinite Number of Fa∣bles and Trifles, which cannot be attributed to St. Epiphanius, without making him pass for an Enthusiast.

If we believe Petavius, the Nine Sermons and the Treatise of the Mysteries of Numbers, which bear the Name of St. Epiphanius, are not this Bishop's of Salamis, but some other Bishops who had the same Name, as may be discerned by the Stile, and other Marks. Tho' I cannot perceive that these Books are more unworthy of St. Epiphanius than the Physiologus, neither do I find so great a diffe∣rence in the Stile.

The Letter to John of Jerusalem, translated by St. Jerom, is made up of two Parts.

The First is about the Difference which he had with this Bishop about the Ordination of Paulinia∣nus, and concerning Origenism.

The Second concerns a particular Matter of Fact which St. Epiphanius relates in these Words:

When I entred into the Church of a Village of Palaestine, called Anablatha, I found there a Cur∣tain hanging over the Door, whereon was painted an Image like that of Jesus Christ, or some Saint (for I do not remember whose Picture it was, says he): But seeing in the Church of Christ the Image of a Man, contrary to the Authority of Holy Scripture, I tore it, and gave Order to the Church-Wardens, to bury some dead body in this Curtain; and when they answer'd me in a mur∣muring way, that if I would tear this Curtain, I should give them another, I promised to do it, and now I perform my Promise.

The First Part of this Letter is acknowledged by all the World as a Genuine Piece, but Baronius, Bel∣larmin▪ and some others are of Opinion, that this Second is supposititious. They alledge many con∣jectures to prove it, but I find only three that have any probability.

The First is, that this Letter seems to be finished before the Relation of this History.

The Second is, because St. Epiphanius condemns in it the Use of Images as a thing contrary to the Authority of the Holy Scripture and the Practice of his own time.

The Third, because St. Jerom making an Extract out of this Letter in his Epistle to Pammachius, says nothing concerning this History. These Reasons, however, appear not to me strong enough to make me absolutely reject this Letter. For first, altho' what concerns the principal Subject of the Letter was ended before the Second Part, yet it cannot be proved that the Letter was perfectly finish'd: And St. Epiphanius being to write of this particular Matter of Fact, could not do it, before he had made an end of the principal Affair, for which he wrote; besides, no Man can say, that this Letter was finished before these Words which are at the end of all, I wish that God may have you in his Holy keeping; Secondly, It is very possible that the Use of Images, which had been very rare in the first Three Ages of the Church, was not yet established in Palaestine and Cyprus, and that St. Epi∣phanius, who was a plain zealous Man, thought it was dangerous to introduce it, and that he also spoke in too rigid a manner against this Custom. Lastly tho' St. Jerom has translated this whole Letter, yet he cites no part of it in his Apology to Pammachius, but those places which were to his purpose, neither does he recite the whole First Part, and we must not wonder, that he says nothing of the Se∣cond, since it did no ways concern the Contest which he had with John of Jerusalem. Moreover, this Second Part has the same Stile with the First, and it agrees well enough with what St. Epiphanius says in Heresy 27th. It is cited by the Author of the Caroline Books, B. IV. Ch. 25. and 'tis said in the 7th. Council, Art. 6. Tome 5. that the Iconoclasts alledg'd, St. Epiphanius was of Opinion that Images should be taken away, which cannot be meant of any other place but of the Second Part of this Letter. Thus tho' it be true, as appears by the Testimony of St. Gregory Nyssen, in his Panegyrick upon Theo∣dorus, and in his Treatise of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, that from that time there were Pictures in some Churches, which represented the Histories of Scripture, and of the Actions of Saints and Martyrs, yet it cannot be said, that this Custom was general; and it must be confess'd that St. Epiphanius disapproved it, tho' without reason, and that he was mistaken in saying, that it did not agree with the Holy Scripture: For I believe that it would be contrary to the Candor and Sincerity that Religion requires of us, to attempt to give another Sence to his Words.

Last of all, we have a Letter of St. Epiphanius written to Diodorus of Tarsus, related by Fa∣cundus in Ch. 3. of his IVth. B. which is a kind of a Preface to the Book of the Precious Stones in the Garment of the Jewish High Priest, written by St. Epiphanius at the request of this Bishop.

I shall not stay to give an Abridgment of St. Epiphanius's Treatise of Heresies, which would be an useless and troublesome Business: I shall content my self with producing in short the chief Dogmes which he establishes contrary to the Errors of the Hereticks.

First, he proves the Unity of God against the Pagans, against the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and the Manichees. He establishes his Immensity, his Almighty Power, his Infinite Greatness, his Spirituality, and his other Attributes, by refuting the Hereticks who believ'd the contrary. He proves the Mystery of the Trinity, the Divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in many places, and chiefly in Heresies 62, 69, 71, 74 and in his Anchoratus.

In Heres. 23 and 65, he shows that God created the World and the Angels.

He endeavours to explain in Heres. 70. in what Sence Man is created after the Image of God.

In Heres. 24 and 36. he shows that Sin is not a Substance, and that God is not the Author of it.

He explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in Heres. 77, 30, 69, and shews, that Jesus Christ was one Person only, compos'd of the Divine and Humane Nature.

He shows in Heres. 77, that the two Natures were not confounded after their Union, and that they kept their own Properties.

He proves the Resurrection in Heres. 42, and 64. and in the Anchoratus, where he maintains, That the same Flesh which we now have shall be raised again.

He holds in Heres. 24 and 46. that Jesus Christ descended into Hell, to save those that had lived well and believed in God.

He teaches that the Soul is Immortal and Spiritual, and that it partakes of Happiness after Death. See what he says about this in Heres. 75.

In Heres. 8. he shows that the Sacraments of the New Law are more Excellent and more Efficaci∣ous than those of the Old.

In his Anchoratus he speaks of Faith as a Disposition necessary to the receiving of Baptism. Tho' he speaks obscurely enough of the Eucharist in his Anchoratus, yet he says enough of it to make us understand, that it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ, and that the words of his Institution are to be understood according to the Letter, and without any Figure or Metaphor.

He acknowledges Free-Will in Heres. 16. and yet he admits the Grace of Jesus Christ.

In Heres. 30. he speaks of the wonderful Effects of the Sign of the Cross.

He proves the necessity of Ecclesiastical Traditions in many places, and chiefly in Heres. 69, 51, and 57. He shows the Necessity and Usefulness of Fasting, in the Heres. 33, 75, and 80. There he observes, That the Christians fasted during Lent, and every Wednesday and Friday in the Year, ex∣cept after Easter until Whitsunday. He supposes that these Fasts are of Apostolical Tradition, and

that we are obliged to observe them, and that we must abstain from Meat in the time of a Fast: He says, that in the last Week of Lent, nothing but plain Meats were eaten, that's to say, Bread and Water, and that many pass'd the two or three last Days without eating any thing.

In Heres. 76 he establishes the distinction between Bishops and Priests.

He ranks in the Order of the Clergy Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Sub-Deacons. The other Mi∣nisters according to him do not partake of Holy Orders.

These inferior Ministers are the Readers, Deaconesses, Exorcists, Interpreters, Diggers and Porters.

He observes in Heres. 75. and at the end of Heres. 80. that the Assemblies of People in the Church were chiefly made on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, and also in some places on Saturday: That Bap∣tism and the Celebration of the Eucharist were attended with such Ceremonies as were prescribed either by the Gospel, or by the Tradition of the Apostles. That Mattins were sung, and that Chri∣stians kneeled at their Prayers Day and Night. That Hereticks, Idolaters, and all those that were guilty of enormous Crimes, were excommunicated, and their Oblations not received.

He proves Prayers for the Dead in Heres. 76. and refuces Aetius who said the contrary.

He says in Heres. 78. that the Saints enjoy eternal Happiness, and that we ought to honour them.

As to the honour due to the Virgin, he keeps a middle way between the Antidicomarianites, who dishonoured her, by saying, That she had other Children besides Jesus Christ, and the Collyridians who ador'd her. He says, That we must honour her, but we must not adore her, nor give her supersti∣tious Worship. Read the Heresies 78 and 79: where he testifies that there is nothing certainly known concerning her Death, nor about the place where her Body is: yet it seems that his Piety in∣duces him to believe that she never died, but he does not deliver this Opinion as a certain Truth.

He praises Virginity in Heres. 4, 8, 5, 61, and 80. but he does not condemn Marriage, nor yet second Marriages. There he declares plainly, that the Church does not admit any to Holy Orders, but such as will observe Celibacy, and that she excludes Bigamists.

And yet he confesses in Heres. 59, that there are still some place, where the Deacons and Subdea∣cons do not observe Celibacy; but he adds, That this is done upon sufferance, because of the weak∣ness of Men, or the multitude of People. Lastly, he says, That 'tis a great sin to violate the Vow of Virginity.

He says in Heres. 59, that a Husband, who having divorced his Wife for Adultery or some other Crime, marries another, is free from Sin according to the Authority of Scripture, and that he is no-wise unworthy of Eternal Life, and that he ought to be permitted to continue in the Church.

He would not have Women undertake any Ecclesiastical Function, and he proves in Heres. 79. That this ought not to be suffered. In short, if one would have an abridgment of the Doctrine, the Discipline, and the Morality of St. Epiphanius's time, he needs do no more but read what St. Epipha∣nius has said of them at the end of his Book about Heresies, where he has given the sum of them, so as to serve for an Antidote against all the Errors of Hereticks.

Any one that gives the least attention to the Doctrine of Epiphanius, which we have now repre∣sented, may easily perceive, that there is scarce any Author, who has made more Observations con∣cerning the Doctrine and Discipline of the ancient Church, contrary to the Errors and Disorders of the Innovators of our Times: Yet they have endeavoured to find in his Writings part of their Er∣rors, and have had the boldness to impute to us the Heresies which he refutes. This Stultetus has done with so much fraud, that 'tis impossible to read what he says about it, without conceiving an indig∣nation against so unjust a procedure. He says First, That St. Epiphanius rejected the Invocation of Saints and the Virgin in Heres. 79. but this is a mere Cheat. St. Epiphanius indeed there condemns those who adored the Virgin, and gave her that sovereign Worship which is due to God only: He maintains that the Church neither adores the Virgin nor the Saints, altho' she has an Honour and due Respect for them. And do not we say the same thing? And can any other Doctrine be imputed to us without a palpable Calumny? But, says Scultetus, St. Epiphanius says in Heres. 75. That the Saints were prayed for, and therefore he cannot approve of their Invocation. This Author methinks should not have cited a place which so plainly opposes the Opinions which he maintains, which I shall set down entire.

As to what concerns the custom of reciting the Names of the Dead, what can there be more useful and more reasonable? This is, First of all, to persuade those that are present that the Souls of the Dead are still alive, and that they are not annihilated. Secondly, To make us ap∣prehend that there is good hopes of those that are dead. Moreover Prayers are not only useful to the Living but also to the Dead, tho' they do not blot out all their Sins; yet they serve to expiate some of those which they committed in this Life. We mention Sinners and Righteous Men; Sinners, to implore the Mercy of God for them; Righteous Men, such as the Fathers, the Patriarchs, the Pro∣phets, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Confessors, the Bishops, the Hermites, and all Christians, that Jesus Christ may be distinguished from all his Creatures, and that we may learn to give to him the Worship that is due to him only; being persuaded that we ought not to equal Mortal Men to the Lord, whatsoever Righteousness and Holiness they have. After this he distinguishes Two Sorts of Saints, those that are on Earth, and those that are in the Heavenly Jeru∣salem; and he adds, that the Church does well to observe a Custom which she has received by Tra∣dition; That the Laws of our Fathers cannot be subverted, nor the Commands of our Mothers de∣spised without impiety, according to the Words of Solomon, Hearken, my Son, to the Commands of

your Father, and do not reject the Admonitions of your Mother. Jesus Christ our Father has taught us his Doctrine by Writing and by Tradition: The Holy Church our Mother has Laws which can∣not be destroyed nor abrogated. Nothing is greater nor more admirable than those Laws, and all those who would oppose them, are self-convicted of an Error.

Can there be any thing more agree∣able to the Doctrine of the Church, or more contrary to the principal Errors of the Innovators! But, says Scultetus, these Arabian Women who offered Sacrifices to the Virgin, did not believe her Eter∣nal or Infinite. But tho' these Women did not, it may be, think so, yet they gave her that Worship which is due only to a sovereign and infinite Being, by offering Sacrifices unto her, and placing all their Religion in doing so.

The Second Objection of Scultetus is about the use of Images, which St. Epiphanius condemns in his Letter to John of Jerusalem, and which he seems also to reject as contrary to the Law of the Go∣spel. We have already answered this Objection, by saying, That indeed St. Epiphanius seems to have disallow'd the use of Images, because this Custom was not then established in his Country: But 'tis certain, and Baillee himself does not deny it, that 'twas then establish'd in other Churches. Moreo∣ver, we must not wonder, that St. Epiphanius speaks of it as a Practice contrary to the Gospel: For 'tis well known, that those who speak against Customs that were not established in their own time, do sometimes make use of Expressions too vehement in rejecting them; as for Example, St. Cyprian condemning the practice of those who did not put Water into the Chalice, makes no scruple to say, that their Custom was contrary to the Law of Jesus Christ. Many other Examples may be brought of this nature, and the Calvinists themselves must acknowledge, that the same is to be said of the Words of St. Epiphanius, since they cannot affirm, that the use of Images, whereof St. Epiphanius speaks in this place, is * 1.2 contrary to the Gospel.

The Third thing which Scultetus pretends to find in the Books of St. Epiphanius contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, is the condemnation of the Sacrifice of the Mass. He endeavours to prove that St. Epiphanius never taught it, because, he says in Heres. 55. and 42. That Jesus Christ came to abolish the Sacrifices of the Old Law, by one Sacrifice only. The meanest Writer of Controversies would easily answer this Objection, by saying, First, That St. Epiphanius in this place speaks only of the Sacrifices of the Old Law, to which he opposes that of Jesus Christ upon the Cross, and that he does no ways exclude the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Secondly, That the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, properly speaking, is not different from that upon the Cross, and that it is always the same thing which is offered, tho' after a different manner. Thirdly, That St. Epiphanius acknow∣ledges, that the Priesthood of Melchisedeck, and consequently the Sacrifice, continued under the New Law.

The Fourth Objection of Scultetus is about Purgatory. He affirms that St. Epiphanius did not own it, because he says in Heres. 59. That no Man can change his Condition after his death, and that then there is no more room for any one to repent and to merit Glory. But does it follow from this Pro∣position which all Catholicks acknowledged, that those who died in a State of Damnation could no longer hope for Salvation? Does it follow, say I, that those who died in the Guilt of some small Sins could not be purified from it after their deaths? All the Catholicks deny this Consequence, and St. Epiphanius has plainly owned it to be false, when he says in Heres. 75, that Prayers for the Dead could expiate some Sins, tho' they could not blot out great Crimes.

The Fifth Dogm of the Church which Soultetus opposes by St. Epiphanius, is the Vow of Con∣tinence: But the Passages which he alledges, are so far from opposing it, that they plainly dis∣cover that it was used in the time of this Father, and that the Church punish'd those very severely who violated it.

The last is about Baptism administred by Women. St. Epiphanius in Heres. 76, says, that it was not lawful for them to baptize. Do not we say so also? But does it follow from thence that their doing of it in a case of necessity is not valid? This is what Scultetus should prove, but it is not the Que∣stion of St. Epiphanius.

These are the false Consequences which Scultetus urges to oppose the Doctrine of the Church: But he does so grosly calumniate us, by charging upon us the detestable Opinions of some Hereticks, that he must have renounced all kind of Modesty to affirm such manifest Untruths with so much boldness.

First of all, He accuses us of making Women the Ministers of Baptism, as the Marcionites did. But where is it found that Women do Administer Baptism in our Churches? They never do it but in great necessity. And 'tis no Heresy to say, That in this Case all Sorts of Per∣sons may Administer it, 'tis no part of the Error of the Marcionites or the Colly∣ridians.

Secondly, He charges us with trusting to Revelations and Miracles, as the Nazarenes did. But is it an Error to believe that there have been, and that there may be Revelations? That Man must have no Religion who says the contrary. The Hereticks are to blame for reigning false Miracles, but the Catholicks are not to blame for Believing true ones.

Thirdly, He compares Transubstantiation to the Enchantments of Marcus, who having put white Wine into a Glass, made one part of the Liquor appear Red as Blood, another of a Purple colour, and a Third of a Blew. But what Affinity is there between our Holy and Sacred Mysteries, and the Diabolical Actions of these Ministers of Daemons? What Relation has our Doctrine to these Impieties?

The other Accusations of Scultetus are no less Calumnious: For do we offer the Sacrifice of the Mass in honour of the Virgin, as the Collyridians did? Do we teach that Concubinate is lawful, as Aëtius did? Do we adore Idols? The Images to which we pay a bare External Respect, are they the Images of Simon and Helena, and other Hereticks? Are they not the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints, to whose Persons only all our Worship is referred? Do we condemn Mar∣riage and the use of Meats as Tatian and the Encratites did? Do we believe that the Souls of the Wicked may be delivered out of Hell? In short, Is there any Similitude between all the Er∣rors of the Hereticks related by St. Epiphanius, and the Doctrines of the Church? Do not we Be∣lieve what the Church Believed in his Time? Do not we Practise what she Practis'd? On the con∣trary, are not they the Innovators of our Time, who take part with the Hereticks of that Time against the Church? Do not they deny with Aetius the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters? Do not they find fault with Prayers for the Dead, and the Honour which is given to Saints? Do not they condemn the Celibacy of Priests, the Vow of Virginity, the Monastick State, the Ceremo∣nies, the Sign of the Cross, the Solemn Prayers? These are the Errors which St. Epiphanius con∣demns in the Hereticks of his Time, and which he refutes by the Practice and Tradition of the Church. And therefore that may justly be charged upon the Sect of Innovators, which Scultetus has unjustly charged upon Us, That their Doctrine is a Garment patched together, and made up of many Pieces and many Shreds * 1.3 of ancient Heresies.

The Stile of St. Epiphanius is neither beautiful nor lofty, on the contrary it is plain, low and mean, it is rude and unpolished; without Coherence and Connexion. He had much Reading and Learning, but no Faculty of Discerning, nor Exactness of Judgment. He often uses such things for Reasons to refute the Hereticks which are False. He was very Credulous and not very

Accurate. He is mistaken in many places about very considerable Matters in History, and gave Cre∣dit too lightly to false Memoirs, or to uncertain Reports. He had much Zeal and Piety, but little Conduct and Policy.

The Works of St. Epiphanius were printed in Greek at Basil by Oporinus in the Year 1544. Cor∣narius's Translation of this Work, had been published and printed at Basle by Robertus Ullinterus in 1533. The same Printer caused it to be re-printed in 1540, and in 1545; It was also re-printed at Paris in 1564, at Basle in 1560, and in 1578, and at Paris in 1612, with some Corrections of Jacobus Billius: The Physiologus was published by Gonsalus Ponce de Leon at Rome in 1587, and printed afterwards at Antwerp in 1588: The Book of the Lives of the Prophets, was published in Greek and Latin with the Notes of Zehennerus, and printed at Scheuling in 1612. The Oration con∣cerning the Burial of Jesus Christ, was published in 1614.

At last, Petavius undertook a New Edition of St. Epiphanius, and having found the Version of Cornarius very defective, he made a new one, which he printed at Paris in 1622, together with the Greek Text review'd and corrected by two Manuscripts. This Edition is in Two Volumes in Folio; The First contains the Book of Heresies; The Second contains the Anchorate, the Recapitulation, and the Book of Weights and Measures, of Petavius's Translation, the Physiologus, the Book of Precious Stones, and the Homilies, together with the ancient Versions of his Works, the Letter to John of Jerusalem, the Life of St. Epiphanius written by Metaphrastes, and the Animadversions of Petavius, which are rather Critical and Chronological Dissertations, than Notes to explain the Text of St. Epiphanius. This Edition was lately re-printed in Germany.

Notes

• * 1.1

  St. Epipha∣nius.
• * 1.2

  [This Excuse is not defensible: The New Testament is as severe against Ido∣latry as the Old was, and more, if we consider upon how much nobler Foundations it is constituted. Neither is this only a Matter of Discipline; or if it is, yet it is not an indifferent thing. The Church of Rome was very sensible of this, when she removed the Second Commandment out of the Catechisms, by which she orders her People to be instructed. If the Abu∣ses occasioned by placing of Images in Churches had never been more dangerous than they were in St. Epi∣phanius's time, this Plea might have been valid for those Churches which still desired to retain them; or if the Church of Rome, in her Offices, Catechisms and Directions to her Priests to guide them in their Sermons and Exhortations to the People, had taken all possible care to obviate all Objections whatsoever which could have been raised, she could then have justly urged it. But Mr. Du Pin knows very well that her constant connivance if not Command, has long ago precluded her from all Pretences of this nature: She knows also, that the Laiety in all Countries of the Communion of the Church of Rome where they have not been over-aw'd by a promiscuous conversation with Protestants, have without check paid as gross Acts of Worship to senseless Ima∣ges of (sometimes fictitious) Saints, as ever the Heathens of old paid to the Images of Jupiter or Apis; and lastly he knows, that his Church is in this Point wholly inexcusable, because it has establish'd and still maintains a Custom, not mentioned at least, if not expresly forbidden in Scripture; unknown to the purest Ages of Christi∣anity, opposed as contradictory to the Law of God at its first appearance, by Men eminent for Piety and Learn∣ing in the Time when they lived, and received as Saints by the Catholick Church after their Deaths, and abu∣sed by the ignorant People to the basest Idolatry and Superstition in all Countries where-ever it has been allowed.]
• * 1.3

  [Who is most in the right, Scultetus, or our Author, will not be hard to judge, to any one who is acquainted with un∣disguised Popery; I say undisguised, because Mr. Du Pin goes upon the palliating Principles laid down by the Bishop of Meaux. There is no question but the Seeds of those Corruptions began to spring up in St. Epipha∣nius's Time, which afterwards grew so high in the Church; yet tho' they honoured the Dead who died in the Lord, and prayed for those who were Guilty of lesser Sins, they neither called upon the former, nor believed a middle State for the latter, if St. Epiphanius's Authority be decisive, in those places which are faith∣fully urged by Scultetus. In the case of Images in Churches, Mr. Du Pin gives it up, because St. Epipha∣nius says expresly that it was against the Word of God: Contra auctoritatem Scripturae. In the Matter of the Real Presence our Author and Petavius before him, lay great Stress upon a Passage in the Anchoratus Sect. 57. wherein speaking of the Sacrament as Christ's Body, he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He that does not Believe it to be the real Body of Christ, as he said him∣self, is fallen from Grace and Salvation. Now to know the full meaning of St. Epiphanius in these Words, we are to go back to the beginning of Sect. 55. There he raises a dispute of the meaning of Adam's being crea∣ted after the Image of God, since there is so great disparity between their Natures: And he finds that this cannot be Physically understood, because to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are very different things; yet since it is said in Scripture, we ought to believe it.

  Now to prove this Assertion he urges the Institution of the Lord's Supper: Our Saviour said (says he) of the Bread, This is my Body; and yet it is not like Flesh in the least, so as to resemble Christ's Humane Nature, nor like the invisible Godhead, so as to resemble his Divinity: But because he has said it we must not dispute it, since if we should dispute it, we should fall away from Grace and Salvation. This Illustration therefore cannot in reason be carried farther than the Original Question which it was designed to illustrate; wherefore seeing that St. Epiphanius confessed, that when we say, that Man is created after the Image of God, we do not mean that he is created after the Nature of the Invisible, Incomprehensible and Spiritual God; it is plain that his illustration of the Eucharist is equally figurative as this Expression of Man's Nature, which he is now explaining.

  But it is needless to run through all the rest of the Articles here particularly named. St. Epiphanius's Autho∣rity is decisive of neither side; if it were, we must believe that Divorces are lawful for other Causes besides Adultery, and that such Divorces perfectly dissolve the Marriage Bond, for this was his Opinion, as appears from Heres. 59. Sect. 4.]