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.

THEODORITUS.

THEODORITUS was born at Antioch, in the Year 386. His Birth was accompanied with Miracles before and after, which he himself relates in his Religious * 1.1 History: For, if we may believe him, his Mother was cured of an incurable Disease, which she had in her Eye, by a Monk called Peter. It was by the Prayers of another Religious * 1.2 Man, called Macedonius, that God granted her to conceive a Son, and bring him into the World: And it was by the Prayers of the First of these Two Holy Monks that she was pre∣served from Death, after her Delivery. Her Husband and Son felt also the Effects of the Deserts of this Holy Man, being often healed of their Distempers by the touching of his Girdle.

After so great Favours, which God had shewn to this Infant, who can in the least doubt but that his Parents ought to devote him to God, who had given him to them a 1.3? His Mother had engaged her self to it, when the Holy Anchorite promised her a Son; which she performed by putting him into the Monastery of S. Euprepius, when he was but Seven Years old; where he learned the Sciences, Religion and Piety. He had for his Master Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and S. John Chrysostom, and for his Fellow-Scholars John, afterwards Bishop of Antioch, and Nestorius, who was not long after preferred to the See of Constantinople. The Bishops of Antioch having knowledge of his Learning and Vertue, admitted him into Holy Orders; yet did he not, upon that account, change either his Habitation or manner of Life, but found out a way to reconcile the Exercises of a Religious Life with the Function of a Clergyman. After the Death of his Father and Mother, he distributed his whole Inheritance to the Poor, reserving nothing at all of it to himself.

The Bishoprick of Cyrus being become vacant, about the Year of Christ 420 b 1.4. The Bishop of Antioch ordained Theodoret against his Will, and sent him to govern that Church. Cyrus is a City of Syria, in the Province of Euphratesia, which was a Country unpleasant and barren, but very populous: There were Eight hundred Villages which were subject to that Bishoprick. The Inhabitants commonly spake the Syriack Tongue, few of them under∣stood Greek, they were almost all poor, rude and barbarous; many of them were engaged in prophane Superstitions, or in such gross Errors, as rendred them more like Heathens than, Christians. The Learning and Worth of Theodoret seemed to qualify him for a greater See; yet he remained in this, and discharged all the Offices of a good Bishop. He cleared his Diocess from Barbarism and from Errors, which were predominant among them. He con∣verted Eight Villages, infected with the Heresy of the Marcionites, and planted the true Faith in two other Towns, where there was none but Arians and Eunomians. In a word, he utterly extirpated Heresy out of his Diocess, yet not without much Labor, and running the Hazard of his Life, for it cost him sometimes some of his Blood, being often pursued with Showers of Stones, and almost killed by the Infidels; so that in him we have the Picture of a good Shepherd, who layeth down his Life for the Sheep. But the goodness of Theodoret extended it self much further. He prevented the Churches of Phoenicia from falling into Error; and being called to Anti••ch by the Patriarch of that great See, he preached there with Applause and Benefit. Let no Man think that he courted this Employment, or sought an Opportunity to leave his Diocess, to reside in a more civilized City. He went not to Antioch but with regret, in obedience to the Commands of his Patriarchs, and the Laws of the Church; which condemn a Bishop who comes not to the Synod of his Patri∣arch, when he is cited thither: Yea, he was so exact in that Point, that he assures us, That he had the good Luck, not to leave his Diocess to go to Antioch, above Five or Six

times under Three Patriarchs, viz. under Theodotus, John and Domnus, and that by their express Order only. He governed his People with so much gentleness that he gained the Love of all the World. All the Time that he was Bishop he never had any Suit at Law with any Person: No Man brought an Action against him, nor did he the like against any Man. He was so very careless of his own Gain, that he kept nothing for himself but some plain Garments, with which he was cloathed. Neither he himself nor his Domesticks would receive any thing of any Man: Neither himself nor his Clergy did ever appear at the Judgment Seats. He employed but a very small part of the Church-Revenues to maintain himself very frugally, and gave the rest to the Poor, or employed it for the erecting some publick Buildings, necessary for the City of Cyrus. He set up Cloysters, raised Two Bridges, repaired the Baths, and conveyed Water, by a Conduit, into the City. He requested of the Empress Pulcheria, That she would release the Inhabitants of the Country of Cyrus from a Tribute, which was very grievous to them. He provided a Physician for the City. In fine, he laid out all he had for the common Good. He was not only a Bene∣factor to his own People, but his Charity extended it self to Strangers: A Lady of Carthage, named Mary, who had been taken and sold by the Vandals, being brought to Cyrus, tasted the Effects of his Kindness, for he fed her at the Expence of the Church, and having purchased her Liberty, sent her home to her Father. He relieved also another Woman, who had been forced to make her escape out of Africk and leave all her Estate there, and recom∣mended her to other Bishops his Neighbours. As he had been brought up among the Monks, so he had a very particular Love for the Solitaries; he went often to visit them, recommended himself to their Prayers, and shewed that he had a very great Regard and Respect for them. He celebrated the Holy Mysteries by the Hands of his Deacon, in favor of Maris the Monk, who had been Twenty seven Years in Solitude, without being present at the Celebration of the Sacrifice; but this was a particular Act of Theodoret. Nevertheless, we must consider the manner how he managed himself in the Affairs of the Church and Religion, in which he had a greater Share than any other Bishop of his Time.

Although John Patriarch of Antioch appeared at the Head of the Eastern Bishops, yet it may be said, That the whole Party were principally swayed by the Counsels of Theodoret, who was, as it were, the Soul and Spirit of it. It was by his Counsel that John wrote at first to Nestorius, to receive the Term of The Mother of God. It was he that undertook to confute the Anathematisms of S. Cyril, and accused them of Heresy. In the Council of Ephesus he was one of the most earnest Defenders of the Party of the Orientals, and he held a considerable Place among the Deputies, which they sent to the Court, where he maintained their Cause with Courage. Being returned from Antioch, he exasperated things more, by causing them to confirm what they had done against S. Cyril and Memnon, and by composing Five Books against S. Cyril. When a Pacification was propounded, he acknowledged indeed, That the Letter, which S. Cyril had written, contained Orthodox Doctrine, but he would have them condemn his Anathematisms, and not be obliged by any means to subscribe the Con∣demnation of Nestorius.

When a Peace was concluded between John Patriarch of Antioch, and S. Cyril, he was displeased that Nestorius was forsaken. He opposed the Peace for some Time, but at last entred into it, and wrote a very obliging Letter to S. Cyril, wherein he praised his Treatise, De Capro Emissario, Of the Scape Goat: He received Thanks from that Bishop, and ever after they had a Correspondence by Letters, and after his Death he quotes him, with much Honour, among the Fathers of the Church. I am very sensible, that some Men, moved by the Testimony of Liberatus, pretend, that Theodoret made a Third Party different from both the Orientals and S. Cyril, which he calls by the Name of Acephali, but it is a false Assertion, which confutes it self, since there never were any other Acephali known but those who were in the Error of Eutyches. Besides, It appears, by the very Confession of Theodoret, writing to Dioscorus, and by the Course of his History, that he was joyned in Communion not only with the Eastern, but also the Western and Aegyptian Bishops. Nevertheless, there was always a certain Antipathy between the Eastern and the Aegyptian Bishops, and principally between Theodoret and S. Cyril. They had some Difference upon the account of the Remembrance of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and they always continued in a kind of Defiance one of another. The Death of S. Cyril did not put an end to the Quarrel, for Dioscorus, his Successor, declared himself openly against Theodoret, and caused him to be excommunicated in his Church, through the Accusation of certain Monks come from the East: But Domnus Bishop of Antioch stood up in his Defence: Flavian Bishop of Constantinople, acknowledged him to be an Orthodox Bishop: But Dioscorus having the Authority to call a General Assembly at Ephesus, in which he did what he pleased; he therein deposed Theodoret, in his Absence, and without Hearing, after he had been forbidden by the Emperor to go to the Synod. Theodoret seeing no Body that could defend him in the East, Domnus having subscribed his Condemnation, and Flavian being dead, after he had been unjustly deposed by the Synod of Dioscorus: He seeing, I say, himself unlikely to find any Support strong enough in the Eastern Church, had recourse to Pope Leo, besought his Help, and consulted him, Whether he thought him obliged to yield to the Sentence, that had been pronounced against him, and desired him at the same Time to demand a new Synod, and he wrote himself to Patricius Anatolius to endeavour to

obtain it of the Emperor. S. Leo having no regard to the Judgment of Dioscorus, received his Deputies favorably, and continued Communion with him. He demanded, That all things should remain in the same state that they were before the Judgment of Dioscorus; and that he would hold a General Council to re-examine the Case of Flavianus and Eutyches. He could not obtain this of Theodosius, but Marcian, his Successor, had regard to their Remonstrances, and assembled a General Council at Chalcedon, where Theodoret was present. In the First Session the Imperial Commissioners said, That Theodoret might enter; the Bishops of Aegypt; Illyria and Palaestine were against it; the Eastern Bishops on the contrary, and those that were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, maintained, That he ought to be received; and cryed out, That the Aegyptians ought to be turned out. After great Clamors on both Sides; it was allowed that Theodoret should take his Seat in the Synod, in consideration that S. Leo had admitted him into his Communion, and judged him worthy of his Bishoprick. This was ordained only for the present, and without Prejudice to either Party, and with an entire Reservation of their Actions, upon the Heads of Accusation, which they had propounded one against the other. This Business was brought to a Determination in the Eighth Session of the Council, in which a Definitive Sentence was passed in favour of Theodoret. Here is a particular account how the whole Business was transacted. Some Bishops (it is probable they were the Aegyptian Bishops, who were the Accusers of Theodoret) required that he should pronounce Anathema against Nestorius. Theodoret answered, That he had presented Petitions to the Emperor and S. Leo. The Bishops replied, That there was no need to read any thing more, let him but pronounce Anathema against Nestorius. Theodoret returned Answer, That (praised be God) he had always been nourished, and brought up in the true Faith by very Orthodox Persons; That he had always taught the Orthodox Faith; That he did condemn Nestorius, Eutyches, and all other Persons, who held any Opinions that were not found. Those Bishops, that were not his Friends, would not be satisfied with this Declaration, but still required, That he should pronounce distinctly Anathema against Nestorius, against his Doctrine and Followers. Theodoret answered, That above all things he desired, that they would be perswaded that he had no Design of staying in a great City, that he was not ambiti∣ous of Honours, and that he was not come thither for that End; That he was come merely to clear himself from that Calumny, which they had nourished of him, and to justify himself to be Orthodox; That he did pronounce Anathema against Nestorius, Eutyches, and all other Persons, who believed that there were Two Sons of God. The Bishops here interrupted him, and pressed him to say Anathema to Nestorius, and to those of his Judgment. Theodoret, who was afraid that by condemning Nestorius clearly and absolutely, he should seem to disapprove the Opinions of the Aegyptians, whom he thought Eutychians, answered, That he would not say Anathema to Nestorius till he had made a profession of what he believed. As he began to say, I believe then, he was interrupted by his Adversaries, who cryed out tumultuously, He is an Heretick, He is a Nestorian, away with this Heretick. Theodoret seeing himself born down by tumultuous Cries, was obliged to pronounce Anathema against Nestorius, and all those who did not confess that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, or who divided the only Son of God into two. He adds, That he did subscribe the Form of Faith, and S. Leo's Letter, and that he was of the same Judgment. Then the Imperial Commissioners, accepting his Speech; declared that there remained nothing more of Difficulty, in reference to the Person of Theodoret, since he had pronounced Anathema to Nestorius, had been received by S. Leo, had subscribed the Form of Faith agreed upon by the Council, and the Letter of S. Leo, and that the Council had no more to do but to confirm Pope Leo's Act by their Judgment. After this Declaration all the Bishops cryed out, Theodoret is worthy to hold his See: And after many other Accla∣mations of that nature, the chief of them gave their Voices separately, and all the others followed their Judgments, insomuch that the Commissioners pronounced, That, according to the Judgment of the Holy Council, Theodoret should remain in the possession of the Church of Cyrus. He returned thither soon after the Council, and passed the rest of his Life in quiet, composing his Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures. He died in peace, in the begin∣ning of the Reign of the Emperor Leo, in 457, or 458. in the Seventieth or Eightieth Year of his Age. But his Enemies, after his Death, revived the Accusations, That they had formed against him in his Life-time, and contrary to the Judgment of the Council of Chalcedon, used all their Endeavours to obscure his Memory. The Ring-leaders of this Faction designed it against the Council it self, and did not attack the Memory of Theodoret with any other Design, but that they might give a Blow to the Council it self. But they had insensibly drawn over many Orthodox persons to their Opinion, and being upheld by the Authority of Justinian the Emperor, they brought about their Undertaking, by causing his Writings to be condemned in the Council, which they account the Fifth General Council. But notwithstanding the Judgment of this Council, many of the Orthodox have always defended, and do still defend his Person and Writings. But this is not a convenient Place to treat of this Matter, of which I shall speak afterward. This sufficeth to have advertised you, That Theodoret met with as bad Usage, almost, after his Death, as he had while he lived.

Of all the Fathers, who have composed Works of different kinds, Theodoret is one of those who hath been very lucky in every one of them. There are some who have been excellent Writers in Matters of Controversie, but bad Interpreters. Others have been good Historians, but naughty Divines. Some have good success in Morality, who have no skill in Doctrinal Points. Those, who have applied themselves to confute the Pagan Religion by their own Principles and Authors, have ordinarily little knowledge in the Mysteries of our Religion. Lastly, It is very rare for those, who have addicted themselves to Works of Piety, to be good Criticks. Theodoret had all these Qualities, and it may be said, That he hath equally de∣served the Name of a good Interpreter, Divine, Historian, Writer of Controversies, Apolo∣gist for Religion, and Author of Works of Piety. But he hath principally excelled in his Composures upon the Holy Scripture. He hath out-done almost all other Commentators in that kind according to the Judgment of the learned Photius.

His Language, saith the same Author, is very proper for a Commentary; for he explains in proper and significant Terms whatsoever is obscure and difficult in the Text, and renders the Mind more fit to read and understand it, by the pleasantness and elegancy of his Discourse. He doth not weary his Reader by long Digressions, but on the contrary he labours to instruct him ingeniously, clearly and methodically in every thing that seems hard. He never departs from the Purity and Elegancy of the Attick Tongue, if there be nothing that obliges him to speak of ab∣struse Matters, to which the Ears are not accustomed. For it is certain, That he passes over nothing that needs Explication, and it is almost impossible to find any Interpreter who unfolds all manner of Difficulties better, and leaves fewer things obscure. We may find many others who speak elegantly, and explain clearly, but we shall scarcely find any who have written well, and who have forgotten nothing which hath need of Illustration, with∣out being too diffuse, nor without running out into Digressions, at least, such as are not ab∣solutely necessary for clearing the Matter in Hand. Nevertheless this is what Theodoret has observed in all his Commentaries upon Holy Scripture, in which he hath wonderously well opened the Text by his Labour and diligent Search.

There are two sorts of Works of Theodoret upon Holy Scripture. The one is by way of Question and Answer, the other is a Commentary, wherein he followeth the words of the Text. The eight first Books of the Bible, that is to say, the Pentateuch of Moses, the Books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth; the Books of Kings and Chronicles are explained after the first manner, the other are expounded by Commentaries.

The first of these Works is intitl'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is tran∣slated thus; Of some select doubtful Questions of Holy Scripture; but may be better translated, Select Questions upon the difficult places of Holy Scripture. It is written by way of Questions and Answers. The Question propounds the difficulty, and the Answer resolves it. This is the last of the Works of Theodoret. He composed it at the desire of Hypatius, as he tells him in the Preface, where he observes, That there were two sorts of Persons who raise difficulties out of the Holy Scriptures; the one do it with a wicked intent, to find in the Holy Scriptures Falsities or Contradictions; but others do it with a design to inform themselves, and learn that which they demand. Theodoret undertakes to stop the Mouth of the former, by making it appear, That there is neither Falsity nor Contradiction in Holy Scripture, and to content the latter by satisfying all their Doubts, so that the intent of this Work is not so much to explain the Literal Sence of Holy Scripture, as to answer the Scruples that might rise in the Mind by reading the Text.

There are some of the Questions which are very useless, and which do not naturally come into the Mind. As for Example, he demands in the first Question, Why the Author of the Pentateuch did not make a Discourse upon the Being and Nature of God, before he spake of the Creation? Few Men would make that Doubt. Theodoret says, That he condescended to the Weakness of those he had to instruct in speaking first of the Creatures which they knew, that he might make known the Creator to them, for he hath sufficiently discovered the Eter∣nity, Wisdom and Bounty of that Being, in composing a History of the Creation; and last∣ly, because he spake to Persons who had already some Idea of him, since Moses had spoken already in Aegypt in his Name, and had taught them that he is what he is, a Name that signi∣fies his Eternity. The following Questions are concerning the Angels. He pretends, That Moses hath not spoken of their Creation for fear they should be taken for Gods. He teaches, That they are created and finite Beings; That they keep their place in the Universe; That they are appointed to defend the People and Nations; and likewise, That every Person hath his Guardian Angel; That they were created at the same time with the World, tho' it may be said, That their Creation was before that of Heaven and Earth. After these Preliminary Questions, which serve only for the explication of the Text, he resolves others that serve to clear the Text. One of the Principal is upon these words. The Spirit of God moved upon the Face of the Waters,

Some, saith he, believe, That it is the Holy Spirit who animated the Waters, and made them fruitful; but I am of Opinion, That it is the Air, which is called in this place the Spirit of God. For having said, That God created the Heaven and Earth, and made mention also of the Waters under the Name of the Abyss, he ought necessarily to speak of the Air, which is extended upon the Surface of the Waters even to the Heaven. And it is for that reason that he makes use of the Term, it moved, which shews the Na∣ture

of the Air.

Theodoret propounds also a multitude of other Questions that are curious, such as these that follow: Whether there be one only Heaven, or many? He seems to admit of no more than two. He is not contented to give Solutions of his own, but sometimes he re∣lates other Mens, as upon that famous Text of Genesis, where it is said, That Man was made in the Image and Likeness of God. He cites some Passages out of Diodorus, Theodorus of Mopsuesta and Origen, to prove that it ought to be understood of the Soul of Man, and he quotes them also, tho' but seldom, upon some other Questions, if yet these Citations have not been added to the Text of Theodoret, which is so much the more probable, because they are not to be found in the Manuscript of the King's Library. That he may give the true sence of Scri∣pture, he hath recourse often to the Versions of the ancient Greek Translators, and likewise to the Hebrew Text, which he read in the Hexapla of Origen, and in the Interpretation of Hebrew words by that Father. He doth not at all search into the Allegories, but applies him∣self to the explication of the Letter and the History, and ordinarily he pitches upon the most plain and natural sence. As for Example, when he explains what is meant by the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he thinks it enough to say that these Names were given them upon the account of the Effects which they produced, That the one preserved Life, and the other made Man to know what Sin was. To make it evident why our first Parents were not ashamed of their Nakedness, he saith, That they were like Infants being not yet defiled with Sin. In sum, That Custom did take away or diminish Shame, as we see in Seamen, who being accustomed to be Naked, are not in the least ashamed when they strip themselves; and as it is the fashion in Baths, without which it would make some Im∣pression. He believes not, That Man was created Immortal; but he says, That God did not pass the Sentence of Death upon him till after he had sinned, That he might beget in him a greater hatred of Sin. He saith, That Adam being driven out of Paradise, was sent into a place not much distant from it, that the sight of the place might put him in mind of his Sin. He quotes Theodorus, who thought, that by the Cherubims which were placed at the Gate of Paradise, they ought not to understand Angels, nor any Spiritual Essences, but Apparitions and Phantoms, which had the shape of Ghastly Creatures. He doubts not, but that Enoch was translated alive into some place to preach the Resurrection, but that no Man ought to trouble himself to know where it is. The Sons of God of whom it is said, That they had familiarity with the Daughters of Men, are not, according to the Judgment of Theodoret, Angels, but the Posterity of Seth, who marryed themselves to the Daughters of the Generation of Cain, of whom were born those great Men to whom they gave the Names of Giants. The reason why the first Patriarchs lived so long a time, was. That Mankind might be multiplied, and for that reason it was, That they married so many Women. In the Questions upon Exodus, he main∣tains, That it was God and not an Angel which appeared to Moses in the Flaming Bush. He enlarges himself much upon these words, The Lord hardned the Heart of Pharaoh, that he might prove, that it was Pharaoh himself that hardened his own Heart, against all the Admonitions and Chastisements of God, who treated him with Goodness and Mercy in sparing him. And in explaining in what sence God may be said to harden his Heart, he brings this familiar Ex∣ample: The Sun is said to melt Wax and harden Clay, altho' there is but one Vertue only in it, which is to make hot; by the same Goodness and Patience of God, two contrary Effects are wrought, the one is profitable to some, and the other renders others guilty; which is as much as to say, That it converts some and hardens others. As Jesus Christ hath declared in his Go∣spel, when he says that he came, That those that see not, might see; and that they which see, might be made blind. The design of Jesus Christ was not to make those blind, who could see, for he wills, That all Men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but he notes by this what happened. For Man being a free Agent, they who have believed secure their Salvation; but on the contrary, they who believe not, are themselves the Authors of their own Damnation. It is in this sence that Judas, who could see as he was an Apostle, be∣came blind; 'tis in this sence also that S. Paul, who was blind, received his sight; 'tis in this sence likewise, that the Jews are blinded and the Gentiles see; yet the World may not be deprived of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, because some Men make an ill use of it. Altho' Theodoret seldom expounds any Allegories, he cannot avoid doing it sometimes. In speaking of the Jewish Passover, he there discovers the Relation it has to the new Law, which he unfolds in a very natural way. The Sacrifices and Ceremo∣nies of the old Law afford him Subjects of Allegory in his Questions upon Leviticus. He also referrs many to Morality, and draws Instructions for Mens manners out of the greatest part of the Ordinances of Leviticus and the Book of Numbers. He hath made many such like Reflections in his Questions upon Deuteronomy. He confines himself more to the Historical and Literal sence in his Questions upon Joshua, Judges and Ruth, which make up the Octa∣teuch, and in those which he hath composed upon the 4 Books of Kings and 2 Books of Chronicles. These last are a second part of his Work, and have a special Preface, in which he observes after what manner the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed. These are his own Words.

There were, saith he, many Prophets who have left us no Books, and whose Names we learn out of the History of the Chronicles. Every one of these Prophets wrote ordinarily what happened in their time. For this reason it is, that the first Book of the Kings is called by the Hebrews and Syrians, The Prophecy of Samuel. We need only

to read it, and we shall be convinced of the Truth of this. They, then, that composed the Books of Kings, wrote them a long time after from these ancient Memoirs. For how could they that lived in the time of Saul or David, write that which happened afterward under Hezekiah and Josiah? How could they relate the War of Nebuchadnezzar, the Siege of Jerusalem, the Captivity of the People and the Death of Nebuchadnezzar? It is then visible, That every Prophet wrote what passed in his time, and that others making a Col∣lection of their Memoirs have composed the Books of Kings? And after these, came other Historiographers, who made a Collection of what the first had forgotten, of which they composed the two Books of Chronicles.

This is the manner in which Theodoret thinks, That the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed. We will not stay longer to speak in particular of those Questions which may be easily run over. The Translation of the Que∣stions upon the Octateuch was made by Johannes Picus President of the Inquests of the Parlia∣ment of Paris, who first published them in 1558, at Paris.] Gentian Harvet Canon of Rheims, translated the Questions upon the Chronicles and Kings.

The Commentary of Theodoret upon all the Psalms is an excellent Work. He saith in the Preface,

That he had always a design to bestow his Labour upon the Book of Psalms, it being a Book which of all the Books of the Bible is most in use among the most pious Per∣sons, and principally among the Religious. That the Psalms being continually in the Mouths of the Faithful that sing them, it would be a thing of great advantage to make them easie to be understood, that they might receive a double benefit by their Prayers. That this reason had caused him to take up a Resolution to begin his Commentaries upon Holy Scri∣pture with that Book; but his Friends having demanded of him some Commentaries upon other Books of Holy Scripture, he was obliged to satisfie them, before he composed this Commentary. In sum, That it ought not to be imagined that his Labour would be unpro∣fitable, because others had written before him upon the same Subject d 1.5, that having read many Commentaries, he did find some of them full of tedious Allegories; and others did so much apply the Prophecies to the Histories of their own time, that they seemed rather to be made for Jews thanChristians: That he had endeavoured to avoid the two opposite Ex∣treams by referring to the ancient Histories, what at present agreed to them, and not ap∣plying to other Persons (as the Jews do to cover their own Infidelity) the Prophecies that are to be understood of JesusChrist, and what is spoken in the Psalms concerning theChurch and the Preaching of theGospel: That he had avoided the prolixity of others, and had gathered into a few words what was profitable: That he first gave the subject of every Psalm, and then proceed∣ed to the Interpretation of the Text: That we ought to know above all things, that a Prophecy is not designed only to fortel what shall happen, but also to be an History of what is present and past, since Moses hath written an History of the Creation not from the Records of Men, but by the Inspiration of the Spirit, that he therein declares the things that happened in his time, as the Plagues of Pharaoh, and the Manna: And, lastly, That he hath foretold things to come, as the coming of Jesus Christ, the dispersion of the Jews, and salvation of the Gentiles: That David also, who is the first that wrote after Moses, speaks of the Benefits that God had bestowed upon Men a long time before, and foretels what should come to pass in after Ages: That his Psalms do not only contain Predictions, but Instructions and Precepts: That he sometimes lays down Morals and sometimes Doctrine: That he sometimes bewails the calamities of the Jews, and in other places promises Salvation to the Gentiles: But that he foretels the Sufferings and Resurrection of Jesus Christ in so many places and so many ways, that whosoever reads them with attention will find them easily: That some did believe, That David was not the Author of all the Psalms, but there were some that belonged to other Persons: And in this sence they explained the Inscriptions, and attributed some to Jeduthun, others to Ethan, and others to the Sons of Care and Children of Asaph, whom the History of the Chronicles tells us, were Prophets. As for me, saith he, I will affirm nothing concerning it: For what is it to me, whether all, or only some part of them be David's, since it is evident, that they were all written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost? We know that David was a Prophet, and that the History of the Chronicles gives the Name of Prophets to the other. Now the Office of a Prophet is to speak as the Spirit gives him utterance; as it is written in the Psalms, My Tongue is as the Pen of a ready Writer. Nevertheless he thinks it safest to follow the Judgment of the greatest number, who attribute them to David.

He speaks then of the Inscriptions of the Psalms, and says, It is great rashness either to reject them wholly or to change them, since they have been re∣ceived in the time of Ptolomy, translated by the LXX, together with the Holy Text which had been reveiwed and confirmed by Ezra. He undertakes afterwards to give the meaning of them. The word Diapsalma according to some, notes an Intermission of the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit; according to others, a change of the Prophecy; and in others Judgment, a diffe∣rent Psalm. Aquila hath translated the Hebrew word Ever, a Particle, which in that place

signifies a connexion of that which follows with what went before. But Theodoret, after he hath related the different Opinions of others, will not recede from the Translation of the LXX and will have it that the word Diapsalma denotes the change of the Song, altho' he will not have this Explication received as absolutely certain, confessing, That none can know the true sence of that Term, but he who composed the Psalms, and he to whom it shall please God to reveal it. He in the last place observes, That the Psalms are not ranked according to the order of time in which they were made, since there are some of the latter Psalms, which re∣late to the Histories, which went before those of which he speaks in the former. As for Example, the 3d. is upon Absolom, and the 141st. upon Saul. He believes, that the disorder is not David's, but theirs, who have disposed the Psalms into the form they now are.

F. Garner▪ hath published in his Supplement, which he made to the Works of Theodoret, another Preface upon the Psalms attributed to Theodoret, but it is evident that 'tis none of his, since the Author therein promotes things which do not agree with what Theodoret says in this last. There are likewise some Fragments of his Commentary upon the Psalms, recited by him in it, which belong to some more Modern Author, who quotes the words of Theodoret's Commentary, and adds to it other Authors, or his own proper Opinions.

Theodoret follows in his Commentary the Method which he hath prescribed in his Preface. He expounds, in few words, the sence of every Verse of the Psalms. After he hath shewn the differences of the Versions of Theodotion, Symmachus and Aquila, and sometimes also of the Hebrew Text, he explains the sence of the words, and applies them to the History or Pro∣phecy to which they relate. This Commentary hath been translated by Antonius Caraffa, and dedicated to the Cardinal of the same Name.

The Explication of the Song of Songs is the last Book of the first Tome of Theodoret's Works. It is certain that he had written upon this Book of Holy Scripture, since he says ex∣presly so in his Preface upon the Psalms; by which it appears, That the Commentary upon the Canticles was his first Work upon the Bible. But there is some reason to doubt whether this Commentary, which has been translated by Zinus, is really Theodoret's. These Conje∣ctures seem to prove, that it is not his. 1. The Author of the Commentary saith in the Pre∣face, That he had an abundance of Business in the City, in the Field, in the Army; and that he had the charge of both Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs. This doth not in the least agree to Theodoret, who had passed all his Life in a Monastery, and who never concerned himself in any Affairs of War. 2. He speaks of S. Chrysostom as a Person then alive.

John, saith he, who hath to this present time enlightned all the World by the torrent of his Eloquence.

3. He confutes very strenuously the Opinion of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, for whom Theodoret always had much respect. It may also be objected, That these Commentaries are longer than Theodoret's; That this Commentary is not cited in the Catena's, as the other Comments of Theodoret are; That the only Passage which is cited, as being a Commentary of Theodoret in one of his Works, is not found in this Commentary; and that Theodoret doth not quote this Book to justifie the Purity of his Faith, altho' it was extreamly suitable to prove it. On the other side there are some Reasons, which seem to prove it evidently enough, That this Work is Theodoret's. 1. It bears the Name of Theodoret in two MSS. which Zinus and F. Sirmondus used. 2. Pelagius II. or rather S. Gregory, in his Letter to the Bishops of Illyria, saith, That Theodoret hath reproved the Opinion of Theodorus of Mopsuesta in his Paraphrase upon the Book of Canticles, by concealing his Name, which is all that the Author of the Preface to this Commentary hath done. But there is still something more: Pelagius II. cites the words of this Preface, as being Theodoret's, insomuch, that it is not to be doubted, but that in the time of this Pope, this very Commentary was looked upon to be certainly Theodoret's. 3. The Au∣thor of this Commentary in his Preface explains a Text of Ezekiel, where Jerusalem is com∣pared to a Lewd Woman, after the same manner that Theodoret expounds it in his Commen∣tary upon that Prophet. 4. This Commentary is very like the other Commentaries of Theo∣doret; it is the same way of Exposition, and the same Stile. Lastly, the Conjectures which are brought to prove, That this Commentary is not his, do not appear very convincing. The first, which seems to be the strongest, is of little Consequence. For Theodoret having compo∣sed this Work, when he was first made a Bishop, he was then busied in many Affairs both Ec∣clesiastical and Civil; and it may be Military, because the Disorders which his Diocess was in, forced him to implore the help of the Magistrates and Governors to protect him from the Assaults of the Rabble, which he underwent several times, as the History of his Life informs us. It may also be understood of the Wars, which his Country was then threatned with. The second Objection would be unanswerable, if it were certain, That the Author spake of S. Chrysostom as a Person then living, and of the Sermons which he preached viva voce. But what he says, may very well be understood of the Writings of that Father. It is of his writ∣ten Sermons, and not of his Preachings viva voce, that it may be said that they enlightned the whole Earth. For his Writings had been dispersed through all the World, his Preachings had gone no further than those, who were there where he preached. As to Theodorus of Mopsuesta, the Author of that Commentary shews, That he had a respect for him in not mentioning his Name. It is true. That he smartly reproves his Opinion about the signification of the Song of Songs. But why should not Theodoret do so, not being of his Judgment, since he could not follow him without abandoning all the other Fathers, and rendring his Commentary which

he was about to compose wholly useless? He doth not spare him more in his Preface upon the Psalms. For 'tis ••e which ••e attacks without naming him, when he says, That some Com∣men•…•… had explained the Psalms after a Judaical manner. The other Conjectures are o•• no force at all, Theodoret is a little 〈◊〉〈◊〉 large in this Commentary than in some others, but not more than in that which he made upon the Prophet Daniel; and these two Works being the first 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Labour, 'tis no wonder, if they are not so compact. In sum, his character and manner of exp••••••ding Holy Scripture are very discernable in it. The Authority of the Catena's is of no great weight, for we know that the Names of the Fathers are sometimes con∣founded in them, and often the best sort of Expositions are omitted. It is easie to put the name of Theodoret for Theodore. In fine, Theodoret hath not alledged all the places, which might be brought to justifie him, but only the principal. So that there is nothing to prove, that this Commentary upon the Canticles is not his, and the proofs which are produced to con∣firm it, are much stronger than those which are made use of to overthrow it. The Preface is Theodoret's Style, and like his other Prefaces. After he hath spoken of his various Businesses, and implored the Illumination of the Holy Spirit, he speaks in general of the subject of this Book. He confutes those who understand it of the Love of Solomon with Pharaoh's Daughter▪ or the Shunamite, and opposes to the Persons of this Opinion, not only the Authority of Holy Fathers who have ranked this Book among the divinely inspired Writings, and have judged it worthy to be receiv'd in the Church as such; but also the Testimony of the Holy Spirit it self, which inspired Ezra to revive the Books of the Holy Scripture which had been burnt in Manasses's time, and entirely lost in the Captivity. Now the Song of Songs is one of those Books, which Ezra hath written without the help of any Copy by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost only. And how could he do this, if it contain'd nothing in it but a description of the passionate Love of a Creature?

It is not then without reason saith he, that the Holy Fathers have reckoned it among the Sacred Volumes, and many of them have explained it in their Com∣mentaries, or cited it with great Praise in their Writings? For not only Eusebius of Palae∣stine, Origen of Aegypt, the glorious Martyr S. Cyprian, and some other Fathers besides, who were more ancient and nearer to the Apostles, but also those who have since gain'd credit to the Church, have acknowledged this Book for a Divine Work. S. Basil explaining the beginning of the Proverbs, both the S. Gregories, one of whom was the Brother, the other the Friend of S. Basil; Diodorus, that excellent Defender of the true Religion; John, whose Discourses do instruct the whole World at this present, and all that have followed them are of this Judgment. Is it lawful to contemn these great Men to follow private Opinions? Is it reasonable to forsake the Testimony of the Holy Spirit to hearken to the Surmises of Men? But least it should be thought, adds Theodoret, that we are not sollicitous to unde∣ceive our Adversaries; being contented, that we are our selves perswaded of the Truth, Let us see what it is that might cause them to fall into the Error, and endeavour to cure it by Remedies taken out of Holy Scripture. In reading of this Book, and finding therein these words, Perfumes, Lilies, Fruits, Kisses, Lettices, Eyes, Thighs, and many other Expressions of that Nature, they have stopped at the Letter, without diving into the hidden and spiritual Sence. But they ought to consider, that in the Old Testament there are many figurative Expressions, which have a clear different sence from that which the Terms do pro∣perly and naturally signifie. As for Example, in Ezek. c. 17. 3. the King of Babylon is de∣scribed by an Eagle, his Power by the Wings of that Bird, and his Armies by the Talons. Jerusalem is there called Lebanon, the Cedars are the Inhabitants. Nor do the Christians only thus expound this Text, but the Jews themselves. In the Prophet Zechariah, c. 11. 1. Jerusalem is also understood under the name of Lebanon, the King of Babylon under that of Fire, the Cedars are the Nobles and great Men, the Pines are those of a middle condition; there are an infinite number of such like Expressions. But to use an Example which hath a nearer resemblance to the subject we are upon; God addressing himself to the Nation of the Jews, speaks to it, as to a Woman, and uses the same Terms that Solomon doth. Read but Ezek. 16. and you'll find there Breasts, Thighs, Hands, Nostrils, Ears. He speaks also there of Beauty, Love, Embraces, which things nevertheless ought not to be understood ac∣cording to the Letter. There are like places in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and in all the other Pro∣phets. We do nothing extraordinary then when we understand the Song of Songs spiritu∣ally; and so much the rather, because the Apostles have expounded who is the Bridegroom and the Spouse spoken of in this Book. Jesus Christ himself is called the Bridegroom, the Spouse is his Church, her Companions are the Souls which are not yet perfect enough to be Spouses of Jesus Christ; they that converse with the Bridegroom are either the Prophets or Apostles, or rather the Angels.

Lastly, Theodoret observes, That the 3 Books of Solomon are as so many Degrees of ascent to Perfection; That the Proverbs teach Morality, Ecclesiastes the vanity of worldly Things, and the Canticles the Mystical Union of Christ and his Church, and that's the reason that this Book is put in the last place. He believes, That Solomon hath learned a part of what he says from the Books of his Father, who hath given an Idea of it in Psalm 44. He will not that this Book be put into the hands of young and weak People; and he says, That none ought to be allowed to read it, but such as have a good Wit, and can com∣prehend the spiritual and hidden sence. Lastly, he admonishes us, That he hath taken many things out of the Works of the Fathers, which have written before him, yet does not account

himself a Thief, for that because it is a Privilege allowed to those that succeed them, to make use of what they have said. He tells us, That he added many things; That he abridged what was too long, and enlarged what seem'd too short in others. He makes a Con∣clusion with a Petition to those who enjoy his Labors without any Toyl, that they would pray for him in recompence; and if they find not his Commentary very exact, he requests them to accept, at least, his Labour in good part, and amend what they find wanting in it. This Preface alone gives sufficient Evidence that this Work is Theodoret's. It is divided into Four Books. He explains the Text with respect to the Sence, as he had observed in the Preface.

Theodoret hath also made Commentaries upon all the Prophets, as he declares it in his 82. Letter to Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra. We want none of them but that upon Isaiah, of which we have some Fragments taken out of the Catena's, collected by F. Sirmondus: But although much Credit is not to be given to Writings of that Sort, I see no cause to fear but what he hath taken from them is Theodoret's. As to the Commentaries upon Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets, they are all entire in Greek and Latin, in the Second Volume of Theodoret's Works. The Commentary upon Daniel was composed first in 426. The Comment on Ezekiel was next. The Explication of the Twelve Minor Prophets followed this. This was no sooner ended but he undertook to explain Isaiah: And after he had finished that, he wrote upon Jeremiah, and concluded all his Works upon the Prophets, with the Explication of the Lamentations, as he himself tells us at the End of his Commentary upon that Holy Book. In this Commentary he keeps to his ordinary Method, explaining in a few Words, very clearly and intelligibly, the Literal and Historical Sence of the Holy Text, without departing from it through Allegories or Moral Digressions. The Translation of the Comment upon Jeremiah, was made by Picus, President of the Inquests: Upon Ezekiel and Daniel, by Gabius: And upon the Twelve Minor Prophets, by one named Aegidius of Albiga, [or Albigensis.]

The Commentary upon all the Epistles of S. Paul, excels all the Commentaries of Theodoret for their Solidity and Elegancy: He therein explains the Text of that Apostle in a very plain and natural way: He composed it after the Council of Ephesus. Theodorus of Mop∣suesta and S. J. Chrysostom having already made excellent Commentaries upon those Epistles, it might seem inconsiderately done to undertake to make a new one: This Theodoret himself excuses in his Preface; and after he hath, according to his usual Custom, invoked the Assi∣stance of God's Holy Spirit, he owns, That he hath done nothing, almost, but abridged the Commentaries of others. He next observes the Order, in which, he believes, that the Epistles of S. Paul were composed; for he doth not think that they are ranked according to the Order they were written. This Commentary is literal. He follows exactly the Expli∣cations of S. Chrysostom, which he does no more, often, than abridge, by cutting off the Moral Observations. This Commentary is the First Work of the Third Tome. It hath been translated by Gentianus Harvet.

The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, which is divided into Five Books, is a kind of Suppliment to Socrates and Sozomen, as being written after theirs a 1.6, about the Year 450 b 1.7. He hath not brought it down to that Time It begins where Eusebius ends, i. e. at the Rise of the Arian Heresy, in 322 or 323, and ends in 428 c 1.8, before the beginning of the Heresy of

Nestorius. Photius thinks the Style of Theodoret's History much more agreeable to his Matter than So••omen and Socrates's: For it is, saith he, clear and sublime, and hath nothing Superstu∣ous▪ But he useth too bold Metaphors, which are sometimes altogether extravagant. He hath had no great Care to observe the Years in which those Things happened which he relates, but he hath taken pains to collect and copy out, in his History, Original Pieces, as the Letters of the Synods, Emperors and Bishops, and hath made mention of some remarkable Circum∣stances which Socrates and Sozomen have not spoken of. He gives us a more exact History of the Arians than they do. He describes many Particulars, which those two Historians have taken no notice of, and he discovers many things concerning the Churches and Bishops of Anticch which had remained in Oblivion, if he had not preserved the Memory of them. He hath committed some Faults d 1.9; but Baronius being prejudic'd against him, reproves some Places of Theodoret's History, where that Father hath not at all departed from the Truth e 1.10. Yet this is much more tolerable than to accuse him, as a Modern Author does, That he hath com∣posed his History for no other end but to abuse the Orthodox, and to make a Comparison between Nestorius and S. Athanasius, and S. Chrysostom, and between S. Cyril, and Eusebius of Nicodemia and Theophilus. There appears no such thing in Theodoret's History, but, on the contrary, he shews a great Aversion to all Heresies, a great Zeal for Religion, a great Love for the Church, and a great Respect for all the Holy Bishops, who have defended the Faith, and a great Esteem for all Men who lived well. This History hath been printed in Greek at Basil, 1536 * 1.11. Eight Years after Rob. Stevens printed it at Paris [with the other Ecclesiastical Historians, in Greek]. F. Sirmondus hath put it in the Second Volume of his Edition of Theodoret's Works. And lastly, M. Valesius caused it to be printed, after he had corrected and compared it with the Manuscripts, according to his usual Exactness. There are Five different Translations into Latin. 1. By Epiphanius Scholasticus, which Cassiodorus makes use of in his Tripartite History. 2. By Camerarius, printed in 1537. 3. By Christophorson. 4. By F. Sirmondus. The Last by M. Valesius, which is the best and most exact. M. President Cau∣sinus hath turned the History of Theodoret out of the Greek into French, setting a learned Preface before it; in which he defends his Memory against those that have attacked it. This Moderation is much more commendable than the Passion of another Author, who seems to have diligently read Theodoret only to disparage him, to represent his most innocent Actions ill, and to interpret what he hath spoken orthodoxly in a bad Sence.

The History, entituled Philotheus, or * 1.12 the Monastick Life, contains the Life and Praises of Thirty famous Eastern Monks, whom Theodoret had seen, or whose Actions and Vertue he had learned of those that had seen them. He composed it about the Year 440. The famous James of Nisibis is the first, who lived a great part of his Life in the Mountains, having no Retreat in the Winter but Caves and Dens, nor any other Shelter in Summer but the Woods. He fed upon nothing but Herbs, or the Fruits of wild Trees, nor had other Cloathing than the Skins of Beasts. After he had passed some Years in that Solitude, he was obliged to leave it, against his Will, to take care of the Church of Nisibis, of which he had been chosen Bishop; but this Change made no alteration in his Way of Living, nor caused him to lay aside his Austerities. He did a great number of Miracles, but that which is remarkable in them, that Theodoret relates, is this▪ That they have all a good End, either to punish Sin, or to convince of the Truth. He punished the Impudence of certain Virgins, who discovered themselves before him, in making the Fountain dry where they washed their Linen, and by making their Hair white. He made the Injustice of a Judge's Sentence manifest, and caused him to revoke it. Certain Beggars bringing one of their Companions, who pretended himself dead, that they might gain some Alms upon the account of Burying him, and addressing themselves to S. James of Nisibis, he bestowed an Alms on them, and betook himself to his Prayers for that pretended dead Man. But God so permitted it, that he died indeed, insomuch that after this Holy Man was gone from them his Companions were astonished to see that he answered them no more: Immediately they returned to him again, by whose Prayers their Cheat had been

so severely punished, and confessed their Fault to him. He pardoned them, and restored the Dead Man to Life by his Prayers. Theodoret also attributes the sudden Death of Arius the Heretick to his Prayers. But he is mistaken in speaking that of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, which agreed only to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. The last Miracle that Theodoret relates is of the wonderful Preservation of the City Nisibis, which was near being taken by Sapores King of Persia.

The Second Monk, of which he speaks in that History, is Julianus Sabas, a Monk of Osreene, who lived a long Time in a Den, eating nothing but a little course Bread, made of Millet, and that but once a Week. All his Delight was to sing Psalms. Many Persons resorted to him in the Desart, and submitted themselves to his Discipline; insomuch that in a little Time he had a great many Religious Persons under his Conduct; who all remained in that Cave, and had no other Room but a little Pantry to keep the Herbs in, which they eat. He sent them every Morning Two by Two into the Desart, and commanded them to rehearse by Turns Fifteen Psalms of David. He that rehearsed them stood up, the other heard them upon his Knees. In the Evening they all returned again to the Cave; and after they had rested themselves a little, they again sang Praises to God. Theodoret relates many Miracles of Julianus, and insists particularly upon the Voyage he made to Antioch, under the Emperor Valens, at the request of Acacius Bishop of Beraea, to confirm the Orthodox of Antioch against the Arians.

Marcian descended of a Noble Family of the City of Cyrus, retired into the Desart. He did eat every Day, about Evening, a quarter of a Pound of Bread, accounting it more conve∣nient to eat every Day, without ever fully satisfying his Hunger, than to fast many Days, and afterward eat his Fill. He had for his Scholars Eusebius and Agapetus. The first had the Government of many Religious Persons, who withdrew themselves into the same Solitude, where he was. The latter went to Apamaea, and there made also many Monks. It appears by the Histories which Theodoret relates of Marcian, That he had an holy Mind. He did what he could to conceal the Miracles he wrought, and did less than he could have done. When these Five Bishops, viz. Flavian of Antioch, Acacius of Beraea, Eusebius of Chalcis, Isidorus of Cyrus, and Theodorus of Hierapolis came to visit him, he remained a long time silent, and when they were urgent with him to talk with them, he said, God himself speaks to us every Day, both by his Creatures and by the Holy Scriptures; he admonishes us what we ought to do, he threatens and exhorts us, but we do not profit thereby; how then can the Discourses of Marcian be of any Advantage? He would not ever endure that these Bishops should ordain him. Another Monk, named Avitus, being come to see him, after he had entertained him a long Time, he caused Supper to be got ready, after the * 1.13 Ninth Hour, and invited the Solitary to eat with him. This Hermite told him, that it was his Custom not to eat till the Sun was down; and that he sometime staid Two or Three Days without eating. Marcian desired him, for once, to wave that Custom, for his sake, because being of a weak Body, he was not able to stay till the Sun was down. This Request prevailing nothing with Avitus, he sat him down to Supper, saying, That he was very sorry that Avitus had taken so much Pains to visit a Person so intemperate. Avitus having answered him, That he would rather eat of his Meat than suffer him to speak in that manner. He says unto him, We have no Custom more than you to eat before the Sun is down, but we are sensible that Charity ought to be preferred before Fasting, for that is commanded, but Fasting is left to our own Liberty. Now we ought to preferr the Law of God before any private Institutions. He engaged another Monk called Abraham, to follow the Discipline decreed by the Council of Nice, concerning the Celebration of Easter. He hated all Hereticks, but most of all the Apollinarists, Sabellians and Euchaitae. Having understood that many Persons had built Oratories to interr their Bodies therein, after their Death, he engaged his Scholar Eusebius, by an Oath, to bury him in a Place, where no Body knew for a long Time where he was. Eusebius executed his Order faithfully, and no Body knew where the Body of this Holy Monk was, till after all the other Oratories were consecrated by the Relicks of the Martyrs.

In the Fourth Chapter Theodoret describes the Vertues of Eusebius, and his Colleague Marcian, and of their Scholars, who had dwelt near Antioch.

In the Fifth he describes the Life of Publius, a Native of the City Zeugma, the Head of many Monks, which he caused to take up their Abode in the same Monastery. As his Society was made up of Greeks and Syrians, he made the Divine Service to be sung in Greek and Syriack. Theodoret also speaks in this Chapter of Theotimus and Aphthonius, the Successors of Publius.

The History of Old Simeon is full of extraordinary Events. He conducted the Jews by the Lyons; he put out a Fire sent from Heaven, which had taken a Village. He undertook a Voyage from Mount Sinai; by the way he found a Man in a Cave, who had dwelt there a long Time, and was fed by a Lyon, which brought him Dates: Simeon continued a whole Week in Prayer upon Mount Sinai, without taking any Food, after which he heard a Voice which bad him eat, and he found Three Apples, which he did eat. Being returned he built Monasteries. Palladius, the Friend of Simeon, made a dead Man tell him who slew him.

Aphra••tes the Persian, professed a Monastick Life, but spent great part of his Life at Antioch, in opposing the Arians. It seems very strange that he performed a Miracle, to cu•••• the Emperor's Horse, by giving him Water to drink, on which he had made the Sign of the Cross, and rubing his Belly with consecrated Oyl.

Petrus, a Native of Galatia, lived Fourscore and nineteen Years, and passed Ninety two of them in the Exercises of a Monastick Life: His first Years he spent in his own Country, and came into Palaestine to worship Jesus Christ, in the very Place where he died for us. From thence he went to Antioch, where he shut himself up in a Tomb, drinking nothing but Water, and eating Bread only, and that but once in Two Days. He freed many that were possessed with Devils, and healed many diseased; among others, the Mother of Theodoret, who was troubled with a Distemper in her Eyes, after he had advised her no more to adorn or paint her self. He cured her also of a dangerous Sickness, which she had after Child-Bearing.

Theodosius, a Monk of Cilicia, was forced, by the Excursions of the Barbarians, to retreat to Antioch. The most remarkable Things in his Life are his continual Labors and Mortifica∣tions. He was interr'd in the Tomb of Aphra••tes, and had for his Disciple Helladius, who after he had passed Sixty Years in the Exercises of a Monastick Life, was Ordained Bishop of Tarsus.

Romanus imitated the Life of Theodosius. He abode near Antioch, lived upon nothing but Bread and Water, loaded himself with Chains, lying on the bare Ground. He was a very pious Man, and did many Miracles.

Zeno, an Officer of the Emperor Valens, forsook the Court, to pass his Life in a Tomb near Antioch, without Fire, without a Bed, without Houshold Goods. He came on Festivals and Sundays to the Church, and there heard the Instructions of the Bishops, and approached the Holy Table. He disposed one part of his Estate to the Poor, while he was alive, and left the rest to Alexander his Bishop, to be distributed as he pleased.

Macedonius the Monk lived Forty Years in Solitude, near Antioch, eating nothing but Barly-bread. Towards the end of his Life he began to eat ordinary Bread, fearing to render an account to God concerning his Death, if he did not do whatsoever was necessary for the Preservation of Life. Flavian having caused him to come to Antioch, upon pretence of an Accusation, ordained him Priest without his Knowledge. When the Mass was over, some Body telling him of it, he was very angry with all that assisted, but chiefly with Flavian, so that they had much-a-do to pacify him: And, on the next Lord's Day, when they invited him to come to the Feast, he replied to those that came to intreat him, Would you make me a Priest the second Time: They had a great deal of Trouble to perswade him that it could not be done again, and it was a long Time before he would come to Antioch. For all this Simplicity he was not wanting, in his Endeavours, to prevent the Execution of those Orders, which the Emperor had given against the People of Antioch, being provoked that they had beaten down his Statue. That which he says thereupon to the Captain, who was to execute the Orders, is very Divine. We can easily enough, said he, raise those brazen Statues again which we have beaten down, but 'tis not in the Emperor's Power to raise the Dead: Can it then be reasonable for him to destroy the Images of the Living God for Statues of Brass and Copper? Theodoret afterwards relates many Miracles of this Monk.

Theodoret passes over in silence a great number of other Monks at Antioch, that he may speak of those of his own Country, Cyrus. The First is Maisymas, whom he makes Gover∣nour of a small Borough. He never changed his Habit, contenting himself to stitch the Pieces on to it again, as it was torn. It is said, That he had Two Vessels, one of Corn, the other of Oyl, which were never empty, although he was always giving out of them to the Poor.

Acepsimas was an Hermite of the same Province, who passed Sixty Years in one Cell, with∣out seeing or speaking to any Man. They carried him Lentils and Water, which he took through a Hole, made slooping that no Man might see him. He used sometimes in the Night to go out to seek Water; one Day he was met by a Shepherd, who believing him to be a Wolf, f••ung Stones at him, but his Hand and the Boughs kept them off from him. Another Time a certain Person had the Curiosity to get upon a Tree, that he might see what this Hermite did in his Cell, but he became suddenly lame in half his Body, and could not be recovered till the Tree was cut down by his means. Acepsimas having foreseen his own Death, opened his Cell Fifty Days before his Death, and suffered himself to be seen of all that would visit him. His Bishop being come to him, ordained him Priest, by imposing his Hands upon him in his Cell. He suffered him, because he had but a few Days to live. There was also in the same Country an Hermite, eminent for Vertue, called Maro, who did a great many Miracles, and was the Author of the Monastick Life, in the Country of Cyrus. But he was not more admirable than Holy Abraham, who converted a Village, and was after∣wards ordain'd Bishop of Carrae, without lessening at all the Austerities or Practices of the Monastick Life. His Reputation for Holiness was so great, that the Emperor sent for him to Constantinople. He propounds also Examples of singular Vertue, in Three Hermites of the same Region, Eusebius, Salamanus and Maris. This last having been a long Time absent from the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries, desired Theodoret to celebrate them; he did so,

and causing the Holy Vessels to be brought, he ••••ffered the Holy Sacrifice by the Hands of the •…•…ons, who ministred to him at the Altar.

All those whom Theodoret hath spoken of hitherto, were dead when he wrote; these Ten which follow were yet alive, He enlarges upon the Life of a certain Monk called James, who was one of his Friends. He recounts many Apparitions which the Devil made use of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 trouble him. There is in that Place a very remarkable thing concerning Relicks: Theodores had received, with a great deal of respect, some Relicks, which were said to be S. Iohn Baptist's, the Apostles and Prophets. This Hermite doubting whether those which were reported to be S. John Baptist's, were not some Martyrs of that Name, would not receive them with the other: He was thereupon reproved, in a Vision, and saw S. John Baptists, who assured him that they were his; and the desired Theodoret to bring them to him.

I pass over some other Monks, of whom Theodoret speaks in the following Chapters to come to the famous S. Simeon Stylites, whose Life Theodoret hath written with a great deal of exact∣ness. He was of Cilicia, and had kept Sheep in his Youth; but being at Church one Day, and there having heard the Gospel, where it is said, Blessed are they that mourn, he withdrew himself into the Monastery of Eusebius Am••nianits, but because he used such wonderf•••• Austerity, which the other Religious Men could not undergo, they expelled him. He retired into a Cistern, from whence they fetched him, repenting that they had driven him out so: But he did not continue with them long, but he went to a Village called Telmessus, where he shut himself up in a little House. He was desirous to pass the Lent without Eating or Drink∣ing; and having proposed it to Bassus, who was preferred to the Office of visiting many other Churches, he gave him Advice not to undertake a thing which might be the Cause of his Death: Notwithstanding, he shut himself up, with Ten Loaves and a Pitcher of Water, and passed Forty Days without touching them; and when Bassus being returned at the End of the Time, came to him, he found all the Loaves whole and the Pitcher full, and Simeon lying on the Ground, senseless: After he had moistned and washed his Mouth with a Sponge, he gave him the Sacrament, by which being strengthned, he raised himself up, and came to eating again by little and little, yet from that Time he passed all other Lents without eating. He remained Three Years in his Cell, and then removed from thence to the Top of a Moun∣tain, where he tyed himself with a Chain of Thirty Cubits long: But Meletius, or rather some other Bishop of Antioch (for Theodoret must needs be mistaken, Meletius being dead a long Time before) telling him, that he need not to cumber himself with the Chain, he brake it, yet did not go from the Place to which he had confined himself. His Fame having drawn an infinite number of People of all Nations to come to see him, and to be very earnestly desirous to touch him, he thought upon this Device; that he might avoid the Multitude, to get up upon a Pillar; instantly he was upon one of Ten Cubits, afterwards he raised it to Twelve, then to Twenty two, and presently after, says Theodoret, he is on a Pillar of Thirty six Cubits high Theodoret approves of such a Life, which appeared extraordinary, and which some disallowed, although an infinite Number of Men highly reverenced him, and came in Multitudes to receive his Blessing. He gave them Instructions, composed the Diffe∣rences that were among them, foretold what should befal them, and often wrought Miracles. He ordinarily continued his Prayers till the Ninth Hour, and did not admit any to Audience who came to see him, till after that Hour. Lastly, he took care of the Affairs of the Church, opposed the Jews and Hereticks, wrote to Emperors, Governors and Bishops, to admonish them of their Duty.

If this manner of Living, by remaining in the Posture of standing upon a Mountain for so many Years, seem incredible, that of Two other Hermites, who shut themselves up in Places, where they were forced to continue always stooping, and bowed down, is not less admirable. This Posture, in my Judgment, is more inconvenient than that of Stylites. The Two Monks which used this Posture were Baradatus and Thalalaeus. Theodoret writes their Lives in the Twenty seventh and Twenty eighth Chapters. He makes an end with proposing the Examples of certain Women, who had embraced a Monastick Life. Marana and Cyra dwelt in a Cell near Beraea, if we may call that Place a Cell, which was inclosed with Four Walls, without any Covering, where they passed their Life in the Injury of the Weather. They wore long Garments, which covered all their Bodies, and were loaden with Chains. Domnina made her a little House in a Garden; she was covered with Hair-cloth, went every Day to Church, and eat nothing but Lentils. Theodoret saith, That in his Time there were a great number of Virgins consecrated to God, not only in the East but in Aegypt, Palastine, Asia, Pontus and Europe, who either lived in common or by themselves, practising the Exer∣cises of a Monastick Life. That in Aegypt there were Monasteries, which had Five thousand Monks in them. He concludes his Book with a Request to those, whose Lives he hath written, not to contemn him, though he comes short of their Vertue, that he might have also a share in their Glory. A Modern Author accuses this Opinion of Rashness, Impatience and Arrogance, but I do not believe that he can find many Persons that have so little Equity, as he hath shewed himself to have, in judging after this manner.

This History •…•…ins m••••y Thing•• very remarkable concerning the Discipline of that Time. By it we may see, That there was a great deal of Honour given to the Saints; That they w••••e in••oked; That Men expected help by their Prayers; That their Relicks were sought after with great e•…•…ss; That they believed very easily in them; That they attributed a great deal of V•…•…e to them; That they did many Miracles, and were very credulous; That th••y were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pe•…•…ed that the Saints enjoyed Eternal Happiness imme∣••tely after their Dea••••; T•…•…r they were with Jesus Christ and his Angels; That they prayed for the Dead; That they vi•…•… the Ho••y P••••ces, as M•…•… Si••••i, and the Ho••y Land. As to the Monks and H••rmites, it appears that they practised excessive Austerities: It was most •…•…ry with them not to eat, but a very 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bread, to drink nothing but Water, to fast all their Lives, and that sometimes many Days together, to be exposed to all the Injuries of the Air, to load themselves with Chains, to make long and tedious Journeys, to put themselves into unnatural and inconvenien•• Po••••ures, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••e on the bare Ground, to be cloathed with course and unseemly Garments, to wear Hair C••oth, to have neither Bed nor Table, nor any other Houshold-stuff, to pray continually, to ••ortify all the Senses, to abstain from all Pleasures, to keep Silence, to shut themselves up in a narrow Place, to stand or bow down al∣ways, &c. But among these Austerities, there is nothing spoken of Whipping; it seems this was not used, unless for the Punishment of Monks, who had offended. There were few of the Monks that were in Holy Orders. They had a great Antipathy against that Dignity, insomuch that some Bishops conferred it on them against their Consent: Nevertheless, many were brought out of their Privacy and their Monasteries, to be raised to the Episcopal Seat: Usually when they were Bishops, they kept the same way of Living. Some Monks were a longtime without hea••ing the Mass, preferring a continual Retreat, before the Presence at the Holy Sacrifice; others came every Sunday to Church. This History of Theodoret is written in a swelling Style, rather in the Form of a Dialogue than an History. He often compares the Anchorites with the Patriarchs and Prophets.

Although the Epistles of Theodoret be placed at the End of the Third Volume, after his Treatise called Philotheus, yet we shall speak to them, when we have treated of the Works, which make up the Fourth Volume. The First is a Work which he hath named * 1.14 Eranistes or Polymorphus, because he intends to write against certain Persons, whose Error was deduced from the Principles of many Sects of Hereticks, wholly different from each other. Although the Heresy of Eutyches was not yet broken out, when he composed this Work, for it was made before the Year 448 a 1.15, yet he there assaults the Opinions which that Monk maintained, and which were common in Aegypt and many Monasteries. He holds, That they come near the Impiety of Simon Magus, Cerdo and Marcion, in attributing to Jesus Christ the Divine Essence only: That they departed not far from the Principles of Valentinus and Bardesanes, in asserting, That the Divine Essence did only pass through the Virgin, without taking any thing of her Nature. And lastly, That they said with Apollinarius, That there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ. These are the Doctrines which he attacks in the Three Dialogues, which make this Treatise. He shews, in the First, That the Divinity of the Word hath not been changed. In the Second, That the Union of the Divine with the Humane Nature is made without any Confusion of the Two Natures. In the last, That the Divinity of the Son remained impassible. This is that which hath made him give to each of these Dialogues a a Title agreeable to its Subject. The First is named Immutable, the Second without Confu∣sion, the Third Impossible. He ends with a Fourth Part, wherein he propounds many Arguments against the Three Errors which he opposes.

In the First Dialogue, after he hath distinguished between Substance and Hypostasis, and shewn, that Hypostasis in the Usage of the Church denotes a Person; he examines in what Sence the Word was made Flesh, and makes it appear, that it cannot reasonably be said, That the Divinity hath been changed into the Nature of Flesh. He overthrows this Error by Texts of Holy Scripture, out of which he makes very subtile Arguments, and by express Testimo∣nies of Holy Fathers of the Church, from S. Ignatius to S. Chrysostom. He adjoyns also some Passages of Apollinarius, which the Force of the Truth had w•…•…g from him, in ex∣plaining this Text of the Gospel, the Word was made Flesh, after an Orthodox manner.

In the Second he makes use of the same Arguments, to prove that the Two Natures which are united in Jesus Christ remain distinst without Confusion or Mixture. He produces several Examples, to explain after what manner the Two Natures are united, without being mingled and Confused; and a great number of Testimonies of Holy Scripture, which prove that the Qua∣lities and Proprieties of the Humane Nature are preserved entire in Jesus Christ, even after the Resurrection. He afterward produces the Tradition of the Greek and Latin Fathers, among whom he quotes Theophilus and S. Cyril.

In fine, he shews in the last Dialogue, that it can't be said, That the Word hath suffered, altho we add, likewise in the Flesh 〈◊〉〈◊〉 because altho it be true, That Jesus Christ hath suffered ac∣cording to the Humane Nature, yet those Sufferings may not be attributed to the Divinity. He maintains, That the Scripture never attributes the Sufferings to the Word of God, but only to the Person of Jesus Christ. He joins also the Tradition of the Fathers to his Authorities and Arguments.

The last part of this Work is a Collection of very strong Arguments, which he uses utterly to beat down the 3 Errors which he hath resisted in the Dialogues.

The Style of this Work is clear and plain. Theodoret explains in it many obscure Difficul∣ties in a very intelligible and grateful way. He propounds his Arguments in a good Order, and conceals not the Exceptions or Reasons of his Adversary, but forces him out of his last hold, and at length brings him over to the Truth, after such a manner as that he seems com∣pelled to it by the Proofs which he hath urged against him. He nevertheless sometimes uses Texts of Scripture improperly, and draws from them far-fetch'd Consequences; brings Com∣parisons not always just, Proofs not over solid, and Reasonings not very convincing. The Tra∣dition of the Fathers which he alledges against the 3 Errors he opposes, are of very great force. The Passages he relates are decisive, and very well chosen.

The Doctrine which he confirms, is as Orthodox, as that which he opposes is contrary to the Faith of the Church. And, in my Judgment, they do him a great deal of wrong, who pretend, that he designs to introduce Nestorianisin, and that he allows only a moral Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ. On the contrary, there is hardly a Page in which he doth not acknowledge, That the Word was made Man; That Jesus Christ is both God and Man; That the two Natures are united in one only Person; That there is but one Christ, one Son. But, say they, Theodoret, in his last Dialogue, rejects such Expressions as are consequent upon the Hypostatick Union, for he is against the Phrases; God hath suffered, God is dead, God is risen; which are most true in the sence of the Orthodox. It is then truly said, That he opposes, at least indirectly, the Hypostatick Union. But if they consider well, Theodoret rejects not these Expressions but in the bad sence that they are capable of, and as they understand them of the Divine Nature it self. He opposes these Expressions in the Reduplicative sence, God hath suffered as God; and in the abstract Terms, The Divine Nature, the Divinity hath suffered. But he owns, That the Person, who hath suffered, was God, altho' he could not suffer as God, but as Man.

Jesus Christ, saith he, is not a meer Man, he is both God and Man. We have often made Profession of it, but he hath suffered as Man, not as God.

This is the Doctrine of Theodoret in his Dialogues. It is so true, that this Work was of Orthodox Principles, that the most zealous of his Party found fault, that he had cited Theophilus and S. Cyril, but had not mentioned Diodorus and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, so that ••heodoret was obliged to justifie himself in this point, which he did in his 16th. Letter to Ire•…•…s; wherein he tells us, That he did it not because he was not willing to make use of any Witnesses suspe∣cted by his Adversaries. Also Theodoret alledges that Book in his Letter to Dioscorus, as a proof of the purity of his Faith, and of the respect that he bore to the Memory of Theophilus and S. Cyril. Had he been well advised to quote S. Cyril with so much Commendation, if he had opposed his Opinions as Heretical? In sum, there never were any but Eutychians, who have condemned this Work of Theodoret. 'Twas by their Craft, that Theodosius banished him by his Edict, in which he approves the Doctrines and Outrages, that Dioscorus and Eutyches had set on foot in the sham Council of Ephesus. But the Emperor Marcian revoked that De∣cree, and tho' afterwards they quarrelled with Theodoret upon the Account of the Writings which he composed against S. Cyril, yet we never saw him attacked for his Dialogues.

The 5 Books of Heretical Fables * 1.16, are a no less Authentick Proof of the Learning, than Faith of Theodoret. He composed them sometime after the Council of Chalcedon at the desire of Sporatius an Officer of the Emperor, who was Consul in 452. He gives us in 5 Books, an Abstract of the Doctrines of the Hereticks, to which he opposes in the last an Abridgment of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church.

The first Book contains an History of the Heresies, which have opposed the Divinity, by admitting many first Causes. All the Hereticks believed, That the Son of God took the Hu∣mane Nature in appearance only. He begins with Simon and ends with the Manichees. In the 2d. he speaks of those who did truly acknowledge, That there was but one first Cause, but make Jesus Christ to pass for a meer Man. This Sect of Hereticks begins with Ebion, and ends with Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus. The 3d. Book contains the History of those He∣reticks, who had other Errors, such as the Nicolaitans, Montanists and Novatians. The 4th. Book describes the new Heresies of Arius, Eunomius, and ends with those of Nestorius and Eutyches. It is doubted, Whether the Chapter, which concerns Nestorius, where that Here∣tick is so much inveighed against, be really Theodoret's. F. Garner believes, That it is a for∣ged Piece, and brings many plausible Conjectures to prove it. He saith, first, that if we com∣pare what the Author of this Chapter says of Nestorius with what Theodoret hath written of him, we shall be convinced that it can't be his; for Theodoret hath always excused Nestorius, he hath always spoken honourably of him, he never condemns him but with regret. On the contrary, the Author of this Chapter declares himself against him, and treats him with all pos∣sible Severity. If you will believe him, Nestorius was an Instrument of the Devil, and the

scourge of Aegypt, he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Divinity and Humanity of the only bego••en Son of God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 He was an Hypocrite, who studied nothing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and get the Affections of the People by a shew of Religion. He was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sooner 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Power in the Imper••al City, but he changed the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Government, and abusing his Power by an unbridled Liberty, he made known the I••••iety of his Heart, and pronounced pub∣lickly horri•• Blasphemies 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Son of God, In a word, he was a Man who had blot∣ted out of his Memory the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Apostles and their Holy Successors.

Secondly, the Author of this Chapter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contrary to Theodoret, not only touching the Doctrine of Nestorius, but also about the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Life. The Author of this Frag∣ment says, That he knows not what was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Nestorius. Theodoret knew well, that he had been the Scholar of Theod••••us. He saith further, That Nestorius had changed his Abode before he came to Antioch. Theodoret knew that he had lived in the Monastry of S. Euprepius, and likewise, That he had been baptized at 〈◊〉〈◊〉. He adds, That Nestorius had shewn in the beginning of his Episcopacy, after what manner he ought to manage himself, and speaks of him as a contemptible Man, Theodoret, on the other side, speaks of him always as a very Learned and Holy Personage.

Thirdly, Theodoret having promised, That all the Heresies of which he hath spoken in the former Books, should be con••uted by him in the 5th, doth not count the Nestorians among those Hereticks, who were in an Error concerning the Incarnation.

Fourthly, this Chapter seems not to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Style. It is swelling, figurative, full of aggravations. The beginning seems to be nothing to the purpose, and disagreeable to the fol∣lowing part of the History.

Fifthly, this Chapter is taken out of the Letter to Sporatius, which contains, besides this History, a long refutation of the Doctrines of Nestori••••. Now this Letter is an evident piece of Forgery, for, 1. 'Tis a Writing which hath no form of a Letter, as being without beginning or end. 2. Why should Theodoret write a Letter to Sporatius at that time, when he dedicated a Book of Heresies to him? 3. The Author of this piece directs his Speech to Nestorius, but uses the Phrases of S. Gregory Naz. ••4. 'Tis not Theodoret's Stile. 5. 'Tis quo∣ted by no ancient Author. 'Tis then a forged piece, from whence in all probability the whole History of Nestorius is taken, and put into the Book of Heretical Fables, where Theodoret has not spoken of that Heresie. Some Person seeing that he ended his Work with the Heresie of Eutyches, and that he had said nothing of Nestorius's, thought he might take that place, which bore the Name of the same Author, to make a kind of Supplement to the Books of Heretical Fables.

Lastly, if this Fragment and the Letter to Sporatius were Genuine, how comes it to pass, that it was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 alledged by those that defended his Memory at the time of the 5th. Council? Why did not Facundus and Liberius cite it? How is it, That S. Gregory being desirous to prove, in his Letter, that he wrote in the name of Pelagius II. to the Bishops of Istria, That Theodoret had been Orthodox in his Opinions ever since the Council of Chalcedon, hath brought no Arguments so Authentick as this would have been? These are the Conjectures which seem to be very strong; notwithstanding 'tis very hard to believe, That this Chapter should be ad∣ded to the Text of Theodoret, and so much the rather, because Leontius, Photius, and the Ab∣bot Theodorus acknowledged it to be Genuine, and these two last have produced it likewise to justifie him. The Conjectures which are alledged against the truth of this Passage, are not sufficient wholly to determine it. The first were of some consequence, if that Work had been written before the Council of Chalcedon, but since it is certain, that it was written after Theo∣doret had solemnly cursed Nestorius, it might be well enough that he changed his disposition in relation to him. 'Tis certain, That as favourable as he had been to him, he disliked him, because he never would acknowledge the name of the Mother of God, which the Ancients had given the Virgin. Since he hath cited S. Cyril as one of the Fathers of the Church, altho' he had at other times condemned him, why might he not also blame Nestorius after he had heretofore commended him? The different disposition that he was in, made him speak diffe∣rently. It was the Interest of Theodoret, after he had anathematized Nestorius, to describe him in that sort as he doth in his Treatise of Heresies, as it was before for his honour to excuse him as well as he could. As to the difference of Circumstances which is observed between that which is said of the Life of Nestorius in that place, and what Theodoret says, 'tis a thing that deserves no stay upon it, 'tis so easily solved. When he says here that he knows not what was his first Education, he speaks not of the time when he was under the Instruction of Theodore; but of his first Instructions that he received from his Parents. And altho' he knew, That he had abode in the Monastery of S. Euprepius, he could not know the Journies he had made be∣fore he came thither to retire. As to that which he says of his Temper and Government, he never speaks elsewhere to the contrary. He hath spoken some things more honourably of him, in other places he excuses him; here he blames him and speaks of him as others, either be∣cause he had changed his Opinion in reference to him, or because he thought himself obliged to speak so that he might free himself from the suspicion, that some had against him, or to make it appear, that he did sincerely anathematize him.

The third Conjecture is weaker than all the rest. Theodoret in his last Book doth not name all the Heresies, of which he had spoken in the former. He contents himself to lay down the Principles which are contrary to their Errors. Among those Principles, there are things as well against the Heresie of Nestorius as against the Errors of other Hereticks. He speaks not against the Heresie of Eutyches in this last Book, altho' he hath ranked it among the He∣resies in the first Book. The Style of this place is not so different from Theodoret's, as he imagines, but on the contrary it may be said, That it hath a great similitude and likeness to the other Chapters of that Work. The 5th. Objection shews us well enough, That it is incongruous to make a Letter to Sporatius into a Chapter of Theodoret's Treatise of Heresies, which was dedicated to Sporatius. But this doth not prove, That this Chapter is supposititi∣ous, nor that it hath been taken out of that forged Letter. But on the other side, 'tis pro∣bable, That 'tis through Mistake, that the name of a Letter is given to an Extract taken out of a Treatise of Theodoret to Sporatius, to which a Discourse taken out of some other Work of Theodoret's was joined. So that it may be said, That this Chapter of the Book of Heresies is genuine, and that it was this which gave an occasion to forge the Letter of Theodoret to Spo∣ratius. A Conclusion drawn from a negative Argument is not very convincing. The Defen∣ders of Theodoret have not cited all the places which might be alledged in his Justification, and we have not all that was then said for him. S. Gregory did not know all his Works. It is sufficient that we see, that at length this place has been cited by Authors worthy of Credit, as an undoubted Work of this Father.

I will not undertake to relate in this place what Theodoret hath spoken in particular of every Heresie; for then I must transcribe all his Treatise. He hath related the Errors of the Hereticks in a way very short, clear and easie. He hath gathered what he says touching the Ancient Hereticks out of S. Justin, S. Irenaeus, S. Clemens of Alex. Origen, Eusebius of Palaestine and Phoenicia, Adamantius, Rhodon, Titus, Diodorus and Georgius. These are the Authors which he cites in his Preface. He speaks nothing of Epiphanius, nor of the Latin Authors which have written an History of Heresies. He is more exact and judicious than they, yet he is not without some Faults. He hath not put the Pelagians nor Origenists in his List of Hereticks. He observes at the end of his 3d. Book, that the greatest part of the ancient Heresies were of short continuance, that they had but few Followers, that they spread themselves but into few Provinces, and that there was scarce any Man that made Profession of them; whereas, all the World was full of Christians, who made Profession of the Orthodox Faith according to the Promise, which God had made to his Church.

The last Book contains an Explication of the Faith of the Church opposite to the Errors of the Hereticks, of which this is the sum. There is but one first cause of all things, viz. God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This God is eternal, simple and incorporeal, infinitely good and just, omniscient and almighty. The Son is begotten of the Father before all Worlds. He is not created, but equal to his Father and of the same Substance, eternal and almighty as well as he. The Holy Spirit received his Existence from the Father. He is neither cre∣ated nor begotten, but he is God, and of the same nature with the Father and the Son. These three Persons are no more than one and the same God, who hath created Heaven and Earth, Matter it self, and all the Beings which are in the World. The Angels also are Crea∣tures. But we must not think that they are of a carnal Nature like ours, nor subject to the same Passions. They are Immortal and Spiritual. God hath created Millions of them. Their Business is to sing the Praises of God; yet he believes that there are some who are charged with the care of Nations and particular Men. The Devils are not Sinners by Nature. God created them in a state wherein they might do good or evil. They fell voluntarily into Sin, through Pride, and God punished them for their Sin by casting them from their first Estate. Man is also the Work of God, who hath formed him by his Almighty Hand; he is made up of a Body, and a Spiritual and Reasonable Soul, which is Immortal; God created it when the Body was formed. All things are governed by Divine Providence; we are not ruled by Destiny. There are three sorts of things in the World, which are worthy of Consideration; real good things, which consist in Vertue, real Evils which consist in Vices, and things indif∣ferent, which may be good or evil-according as we make use of them, as Riches and Po∣verty, Prosperity and Adversity, Health and Sickness. If we may believe Theodoret, the Goods and Evils of the first sort are in our Power; he holds, That it is in our Power to be Vertu∣ous or Sinners; but as to all other things, God disposeth of them as he pleaseth, for Reasons to us unknown. The Word of God, his only Son, was made Man to restore our decayed Na∣ture, and as the whole Man had sinned, he assumed our Nature entire. He did not take a Body to cover his Divinity, but a Soul and Body like to ours, nor did he put off that Nature at his Resurrection. He came to teach Men a more perfect Law than that of Moses, but yet not contrary to it in the least. Baptism came in place of the Jewish Washings. This Ordi∣nance, which is of marvellous Virtue, was not established for the remission of Sins past only, but also to make us hope for the good things promised, by making us Partakers of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and rendring us the Children of God, Heirs of his King∣dom, and coheirs with Jesus Christ: For Baptism is not only a Rasor (as I may say) to cut off Sins past: For if that were so, why should we baptize Children in their Infancy, says Theodoret here, who have nothing of Sin? (This is Pelagianism, if he doth not understand it of

actual Sins.) This Sacrament of Baptism gives us the hopes of the Resurrection, which we expect. The Soul is not raised, that shall only be reunited to its Body, which shall be formed anew. The Unbelievers shall be raised from the Dead, as well as Believers, the Sinner as well as the Just. All Men shall receive at the day of Judgment, either a Reward of their Ve•…•…, or a Punishment for their Sins. The Reward of the Saints shall have nothing temporal or pe••••shing in it. It consists in the enjoyment of Eternal Goods. Christ's millenary Reign is a Fable. This Eternal Life is free from Temptation and Sin, and full of ineffable Joy. Before all t••is, shall the coming of Jesus Christ in Glory be, which shall follow the coming of Antichrist.

Theodoret after he hath spoken of that which concerns the Faith of the Creed, passeth to the Articles which relate to Mens manners. The first is of Virginity. God hath not com∣manded it, but yet he gives it such Commendation as it deserves, that he may encourage Men to embrace it. Marriage is not forbidden, but the end of it ought to be for the Procreation of Children. Second Marriages are not prohibited neither, but Fornication and all other Un∣cleannesses are condemned by the Evangelical Law.

Theodoret goes on next to Repentance, and after he hath observed, That the Scripture doth not only forbid Sin, but also affords a Remedy for the Cure of those, who have committed it, by exhorting to Repentance; he faith, That there is also a Medicine for Sins committed after Baptism, but that they cannot be cured as before, by Faith alone, we must make use of Tears, Weeping, Groans, Fastings, Prayers, and a Satisfaction proportionable to the greatness of the Sin, that we have committed. And as to those, who are not so disposed, the Church doth not despair of them, but admits them to Communion. These, saith he, are the Laws of the Church about Repentance. Lastly, as concerning Abstinence, the Church doth not forbid the use of Wine and Flesh as some Hereticks do, but leaves us at Liberty, that they that will may Abstain. She obliges no Man to embrace a Monastick Life, but that is entirely free. These are the Articles of Doctrine of the Church, which Theodoret opposes to the Errors of the Hereticks, and which he proves by express Testimonies of Holy Scripture excellently well chosen.

In speaking of Providence, he referrs us to what he hath said in the ten Books which he hath written upon that Subject. He cites them also in his Commentary upon the 67th. Psalm, and speaks of them in his 133d. and 182d. Letters. This makes it evident, That altho the Discourses of Providence are put after the Treatise of Heretical Fables, yet they were composed a long time before about the year 433. These are the Discourses or Sermons which he recited probably at Antioch. In the five first he proves a Providence by the admirable Position of the Heavenly Bodies, by the wonderful Order of the Elements, by the Contexture of the Parts of Man's Body, by the invention of Arts, and by the dominion of Man over the Beasts. In the 6th. 7th. and 8th. he answers some Objections which may be made against Providence, by shewing, That Poverty, Bondage and other Misfortunes, to which Men and even the Just, are subject, have Profit in them. In the 9th. he shews, That the practice of Vertue is not unprofitable, altho' very often it is not recompensed in this World, because it shall be rewarded in another Life. In the last, after he hath observed, That God hath always loved, and taken care of all Men; he shews, That this Love appears plainly in the Incarna∣tion of the Son of God, and all that Jesus Christ hath done for them. These Discourses are written with a great deal of Generosity and Eloquence. They have been published by Ma∣joranus [at Rome] in 1545. and translated by Gualter [at Tigur.] in 1546. [Afterward at Paris, 1630. in Octavo, Dr. Cave.]

There is not less Eloquence and much more Learning in the 12 Discourses concerning the * 1.17 Cure of the false Opinions of the Heathens, where he proves the truth of our Religion, and vinces the Heathens of Falshood, by comparing them together. Theodoret undertook this Work to satisfie some Objections which had been made to him. He speaks of it in his Let∣ter to Renatus, and in that which he wrote to S. Leo, and he puts them among those Books, which he had composed before the year 438. He therein speaks of the Law of the Empe∣ror, in which he had commanded that the Temples should be demolished, pursuant to a Law of Theodosius promulgated in 426. So that this Work was framed in some of the following years. It is divided into 12 Discourses, of which Theodoret himself hath made an Abridgment. The first is of the Credulity of the Christians and Ignorance of the Apostles. Theodoret proves both of them are unjustly imputed to the Christians, as a proof of the Falshood of their Reli∣gion; That the wisest Persons have not always been those who have had most Eloquence and Learning; That the Greeks have been taught that Wisdom by the Barbarians; That Plato had acknowledged, That the greatest Philosophers were not always those, who were most skilful in Arts and Sciences; That it was not true, that the Christians believed rashly and without proof; That the Heathen Philosophers required Faith, and that they themselves had yielded Faith to the Poets; That they had acknowledged, that Faith was necessary in order to Knowledge; yea, that there was no part of Knowledge but required some sort of Faith in order to it.

In the second, after he hath examined the Opinions of the Heathen Philosophers concerning the beginning of the World, he makes it appear, that what Moses hath said of it, is much more rational than all that the Philosophers have imagined; and that Plato had taken all that he hath spoken so▪ well upon that subject, out of the Books of Moses.

In the Third he compares that which the Greeks have written concerning their Petty-Gods, with what the Christians have said of Spiritual Creatures, Angels and Demons; and makes it clear, by that Comparison, that the Doctrine of Christians is as wise and rational as the Heathens is impious and ridiculous.

In the Fourth he shews, That what the Christians believe of the Creation of the World, is far more reasonable than what Plato and the other Philosophers have taught of it.

In the Fifth he speaks of the Nature of Man; and after he hath laid down what the Chri∣stians and Greeks think of it, he shews the Difference between Light and Darkness, Ignorance and Error.

In the Sixth he discourses of Providence;

for, saith he, it was just, after I had spoken of God and the Creatures, to say something of Providence, in Refutation of the Impiety of Diagoras, the Blasphemies of Epicurus, and the Fabulous Sentiments of Aristotle, by confirming the Doctrine of Plato and Plotinus upon that Subject, and by proving, from Reasons, drawn from Nature and the Frame of the World, that the Providence of God is manifested in all Creatures.

In the Seventh Discourse he condemns the Sacrifices of the Heathen, and makes use of the Testimonies of the Prophets, to prove that the Ceremonies of the old Law were intended for Persons unperfect only.

In the Eighth he undertakes to defend the Honour which the Christians give the Martyrs, shewing, by the Testimonies of the Philosophers, Poets and Historians, that the Greeks have honoured the Memory of Eminent Men, by offering Sacrifices to them after their Death, and by bestowing on them the Qualities of Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes, although the greatest part of them had been Infamous and Criminals: And this he does to give a clearer Demonstration that the Christians did honour their Martyrs far more deservedly. He makes a Comparison between the Heathen Law-givers and the Apostles, which is the Subject of the Ninth Dis∣course.

In the Tenth he compares the Predictions of the Greeks with the Prophecies of the Jews, and by that Comparison demonstrates, that the one promoted Falshood and Absurdities, where∣as the other had foretold nothing but what is true and reasonable.

In the Eleventh he relates what both Heathens and Christians have said concerning the End of the World, and the Last Judgment.

Lastly, in the Twelfth Discourse he shews, That the Life of the Apostles, and of those who have imitated them, is far above the Life of other Men.

In these Discourses there is a great deal of Learning; Theodoret quotes above an hundred Heathen Authors in them: They are written with a great deal of Art and Eloquence, and may not give Place in any thing to all the Works of Antiquity, composed for the Defence of Religion. They are translated by Acciaolus, who printed his Version at Paris in 1519. Sil∣burgius hath published them since in Greek [and Latin, at Heidelberg 1592. in Folio, with his own Notes, full of most useful and excellent Learning, Cave.]

The Addition, which is at the End of this Fourth Tome of the Works of Theodoret, doth not contain forged Pieces, but certain Treatises that have not yet been put in order. The First is a Discourse of Charity, which is a kind of a Conclusion of his History of Religion; in which he extols the Charity and Love that the Martyrs of the Old and New Testament had shewn in their Sufferings.

The Discourse which carries the Name of a Letter to Sporatius, is not a Letter, but a Fragment of the Treatise of Heresies, to which is joyned an Explication of the Mystery of the Incarnation. We will put the Letter to John bishop of Germanicia to the other Letters of Theodoret, and will elsewhere speak of the Confutation of S. Cyril's Anathe∣matisms, as also of the Discourse that he made at Chalcedon against S. Cyril, when he was Deputy for the Oriental Bishops, after the Council of Ephesus. We have one of th••se Dis∣courses entire, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and some Fragments of Three other, in the Acts of the Fifth Council.

Theodoret being returned to Antioch, after the Council of Ephesus, composed Five other Books against S. Cyril. M. Mercator hath given us some Extracts of them in Latin, and F. Garner hath published some Fragments of them in Greek. Photius, in the Forty sixth Book of his Bibliotheca, makes mention of Twenty seven Books of Theodoret against several Propositions. The Twenty last are Eutherius's of Tyana, as we have learned of M. Mercator. F. Garner believes, That the Seven First Books are the Work against S. Cyril, but, for my part, I rather believe them another Treatise of the Incarnation, which he often speaks of. For, 1. The Work of S. Cyril was divided into Five Books, this into Seven. 2. Photius, without doubt, would have observed, That these Discourses were against S. Cyril. 3. The subject of these Dis∣courses does not agree, in the least, with the Treatise against S. Cyril.

The First, saith Photius, is against those, that say, That the Word and Humanity make up but one Nature, and who attribute the Sufferings to the Divinity. The Second sets upon the same Errors very strongly, by Testimonies of Scripture. The Third is about the same Subject. The Fourth contains the Opinions of the Holy Fathers about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our Saviour. The Fifth gathers together the Opinions of the Hereticks, and shews that they are near-a-kin to their Error, who will not acknowledge Two Natures in Jesus Christ.

The Sixth shews, That there is but one Jesus Christ. The Seventh is instead of a Letter.

Theodoret, ••n the Catalogue, which himself made of his Works, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other Treatises, which he had composed against the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarists and Marcionites, but these Works are irrecoverably lost a 1.18, as also the Treatise against the Jews, and * 1.19 the Answer to the Questions of the Persian Magi; nor have we his † 1.20 Book of Mysteries, to which he re••e••••s his Readers, when he is speaking of Baptism, in his last Book of Heretical Fables, and of which he makes mention in the Places where he gives a Catalogue of his Works, nor the Book of Theology. It seems likewise, that all these Works were not known to those who have spoken of Theodoret, for neither Photius, nor Gennadius, nor Nicephorus, nor Hebe∣diesu, who have made Catalogues of Theodoret's Works, have made mention of them. He had also made an Apology for Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, which the Author last named, calls the Apology of the Fathers. Theodores gives an hint of them in one of his Letters, and some Fragments are to be found in the Fifth Council. Photius hath preserved large Extracts of the Five Discourses, compiled in the Commendation of S. Chrysostom. He observes, That he had made a greater Number, but he had never seen any but these Five: That the one Part of the First Discourse seems to respect another Subject; but, in the latter Part, he tells us, How S. Chrysostom was made Bishop, the Design he had to restore the Priesthood to its Ancient Splendor, the Discourse he made against the C••inites, his Sermons which he preached for the good of the State, the Envy that they had against him, the manner how he was driven out, and sent into Exile, and other Circumstances of the Life of this great Saint. He saith, That the Second Sermon being but short, contained very little of his Praise, but the Third, which was much superior to the others, in the choiceness of Words and Notions, surpassed the Bounds of a Panegyrick. The Fifth and Sixth finish the Description of his Vertues.

Photius relates these long Extracts, but they are in a Style wholly different from Theodoret's. They are nothing but Antitheses, Jinglings of Words, abrupt Phrases, childish Notions, and nothing like Theodoret's Style, which is grave, masculine and serious. 'Tis not the same with the Sermon upon the Nativity of S. John Baptist, published by F. Garner, which is like enough to Theodoret's Style. Hebediesu attributes to Theodoret a Book against Origen, but he hath not spoken of it in any other Place, and 'tis very unlikely that he hath written any thing against that Author. There is a Manuscript, where a Book of Asceticks, printed under the Name of Maximus, carries Theodoret's Name, but it is rather the former's.

We have deferr'd to speak of the Letters of Theodoret till this Place, because they are very proper to represent the History of his Life, and give us a true Idea of his Conduct, so as we ordinarily conclude with a Description of the Authors. We have judged that we cannot do this better of Theodret than by drawing it from his Letters, where he ingenuously discovers his Opinions and Notions. There we may see the Obligations he had, the Motives by which he acted, the Disposition he was of, the Vertues and Failings which he had.

These Letters are of Two Sorts: The One concern the Disputes which he had, through his whole Life, with the Bishops of Aegypt: Others are Familiar Letters, written about pri∣vate Affairs. The First of these may be referred to Three Classes; the First is made up of those which were written before and in the Time of the Ephesine Council; the Second of such as were written during the Time that the Peace between the Oriental Bishops and the Aegyptians was i•• making, till it was agreed on: And the Third contains those which were written from the Time he began to be troubled afresh, until his Absolution pronounced in the Council of Chalcedon.

Since we shall be obliged to speak of these Letters in particular, when we shall lay down the History of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, we shall content our selves to observe only their Number in this Place, and what may be deduced from thence, to make known the Disposition of Theodoret.

The First Class contains but a very small Number of Letters, especially if we do not attribute to Theodoret all the Letters which were written from Ephesus in the Name of the Eastern Bishops. The First is the Letter which he wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, when he sent him the Confutation of S. Cyril's Twelve Chapters, in the Year 431. This we have in Greek and Latin; but of all the others only the Latin Version. M. Mercator hath preserved a Fragment of a Letter, which Theodoret wrote from Ephesus to Andrew Bishop of Samosata▪ There is also a Letter in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, written from Chalcedon to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Four or Five others in the Collection of Lupus, written before the Affair of the Peace began to be spoken off. It is evident by these Letters that Theodoret was extreamly incensed against the Twelve Chapters, because he thinks them Heretical, defends Nestorius, accounts him Orthodox and unjustly condemned, and was per∣swaded that S. Cyril and Memnon had been justly condemned. In a Word, he maintains all

that was done by the Oriental Bishops, and disapproves whatsoever S. Cyril and the Council ••ad done.

The Second Class contains no other Letters, almost, but those which have been lately published by F. Lupus, out of a Manuscript of the Library of Monte Cassino, which comprehends a great Number of Letters of the Oriental Bishops, but all in Latin. These are all taken out of a Collection, which had been formerly made by Count Irenaeus, who assisted at the Council of Ephesus in the room of the Emperor, and was after a Bishop in Phoenicia. As he was one of the most zealous Favourers of Nestorius, he had gathered all the Letters together, which might countenance him; and drew Consequences from them to maintain his Party. This Book was entituled A Tragedy, because he pretends to shew, That the Condemnation of Nestorius was but a bloody Scene exhibited to the World. We have already seen that Isidore of Damiata, and Eutherius of Tyana had given that Name to what was done in the Council of Ephesus. The Ancient Author, who hath taken out of him these Letters, which he hath in∣serted in his Collection, hath set down in some Places the Reflections of Irenaeus. The Design of this Author hath been to justify Theodoret, and to shew, That since all the Letters are certainly his, he cannot be accused of Heresy, because it appears, That he always acknow∣ledged the Letter which S. Cyril wrote to procure Unity, to be Catholick Doctrine, and that he never defended Nestorius but in Matter of Fact, believing him of the same Judgment.

Although we have these Letters only upon the Faith of this Author, and in one Manu∣script, which the Romanists likewise are careful to conceal, ever since F. Lupus made use of it, it may be, because it contains some Pieces, which are not favourable to the Pretensions of the Court of Rome; yet it is not to be doubted but that they are Ancient: For, 1. We find in this Collection those which are in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and of the Third Council, and of which M. Mercator recites some Fragments. 2. They contain such parti∣cular Facts, and accompanied with such Circumstances, and which have such a natural Relation to the rest of the History of the Council of Ephesus, that it is impossible that they should be devised by an Impostor. 3. The principal Matters, which they discover, are confirmed by other undoubted Records, although they are not sufficiently explain'd and cleared but by these Letters. Lastly, It cannot be doubted but they are taken out of the Collection of Irenaeus. The Terms, which are cited, make it evident, that this Work is not forged. Now Irenaeus lived in the very Time of the Controversy, and was a Witness of all that had passed, so that these Letters are very Ancient. It may be objected, That Irenaeus, being of the Novatians Party, might forge those Letters of Theodoret in their Favour: But what likelihood is there that he should have the Boldness to do it, in a Time, in which it was so easy a Matter to convince him of the Imposture. There are more than Thirty Letters in this Collection, which bear the Name of Theodoret. I will not here speak of every one in particular, because I will not repeat the same thing over twice, I will content my self to relate the Consequences which may be drawn from them.

First of all, They shew that Theodoret, did always approve the Doctrine contain'd in S. Cyril's Letter, written about the Reconcilement: He looked upon it to speak the Truth, as a kind of Recantation of the Doctrine contain'd in the Twelve Chapters, but he thought it Orthodox, although Nestorius, Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and some others, found Fault with it.

II. At first he shewed a great deal of Averseness to receive S. Cyril into his Communion, for though he believed that he professed Orthodox Doctrine, and revoked his pretended Errors, yet he could not bring himself to a Reconciliation, with a Person, whom he thought to be the Author of all his Troubles: Nevertheless, he passed it over at length, and offered to Communicate with him, provided that he should not be obliged to pronounce Nestorius accursed, and that all the Bishops of the Eastern Party might be restored.

III. Having heard that the Peace was concluded, without mention of their Restauration, That Nestorius was forsaken, and that Paul Bishop of Emesa had cursed him, he joyned him∣self with Alexander of Hierapolis, and many other Bishops, who would have nothing to do with that Agreement, and who separated themselves from John of Antioch, because he had made it.

IV. Being Sollicited by John Bishop of Antioch to yield himself, and pressed to it by his Monks, who were afraid that he would be driven out of his Bishoprick, he entred a Confe∣rence about it with John Bishop of Antioch, and consented to receive S. Cyril into his Commu∣nion, nevertheless, without cursing Nestorius, and exhorted the other Bishops to do the same soon after. He wrote Letters to S. Cyril, and received Letters from him, but he did not entirely put off the good Opinion he had of Nestorius and his most zealous Adherents; and although he dare not stand up in their Defence ever after, yet he seems always to have some Compassion for them, and also a secret Grudge against S. Cyril, and the Bishops of Aegypt, who envied him, both in his Life-time and after his Decease. S. Cyril himself complains of his Behaviour, if the Letter which is found in the Vatican Manuscript, and which F. Garner has printed, be really his. And Theodoret, for his part, bespatters the Memory of S. Cyril, in as bloody a Letter as can be written: If it be of him that he speaks, in that which is recited in the Fifth Council, and if that Letter be not forged; but this we shall examine elsewhere: Yet we

must observe, That F. G••r•••••• hath published a Letter of Theodoret's, to John of Antioch, in Greek and Latin, which had been before printed by Le•• Allatius and C••telierius; in which he approves the Form of Agreement as very Orthodox.

The Third Class of Th••••d••ret's Letters, which are Historical, is contained in the Greek and Latin Collection of his Letters, which F. Sirmondus hath published at the End of the Third Tome of his Works.

The Sixtieth Letter may be reckon'd the First, according to the Order of Time, which was written to Di••s••••rus, newly preferr'd to the See of Alexandria, after the Death of S. Cyril, which happen'd in 444. This Letter is a proof that the Reconciliation of Theodoret with the Aegyptians was sincere, and that he did not intend to trouble the Peace of the Church. Nevertheless he was Accused to the Emperor, the next Year, by those that favoured the Er∣ror of Eutyches, of troubling the Peace of the Church, by holding frequent Assemblies at An∣tioch, instead of residing in his own Diocess. Under this pretence they obtain'd an Order from the Emperor, in which he strictly enjoined Theodoret to remain in his own City Cyrus, and not stir from thence. This Order was shew'd him by Count Rufus, and he immediately Obeyed it. Yet he wrote in his own defence to Patricius Anatolius, to the Praefect Eutrechi∣us, and to the Consul Nonius. These Letters are the Seventy Ninth, Eighty, and Eighty One. He therein shews, That it was very unjust to give Credit to the Accusations of his Enemies without hearing him; That he has always lived a blameless Life; That no Man complained of him in his own Country; That he was not troubled that he was confined to the City Cyrus, but on the contrary, there was no place of Dwelling more pleasing to him; but this grieved him, That he was constrain'd to it by the Order of the Emperor, because it would give an occasion to the People of his Diocess to slight his Instructions; That he was wrongfully Accused of ha∣ving held frequent Assemblies at Antioch, since he never came thither but when he was Sum∣moned by his Patriarch; That he had done nothing but what was according to the Canons and Discipline of the Church; That he had lived and discharged all the parts of his Ministry with∣out fault; That all his Crime was, that he Lamented the Miseries of the Phoenician Churches; That he was ready to be Judged by a Council of Bishops, and that in the presence of the most Illustrious Magistrates.

The Enemies of Theodoret were not satisfied to have accused his Behaviour, but they would render his Faith suspected, and to this end published in Alexandria, that he taught, that there were Two Sons of God. This obliged him to write his Eighty Second Letter to Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra, wherein he declares, that he was so far from that Errour, that when he dis∣covered some of the Fathers of the Nicene Council to incline to a Division of the Two Na∣tures, he was much troubled, because he knew, that the excessive use, they made of it, had given occasion to that Errour.

And for fear, addeth he, that it should be thought, that it is fear, which makes me now speak in this manner, let those who would inform them∣selves fully of my Opinion, read the Works which I have composed, either before the Council of Ephesus, or within these Twelve Years last past, which if they examine, and judge of my Opinions by them, they will find, that I have no other.

The Accusation, which Theodoret endeavours to clear himself of in this Letter, was greedi∣ly received by Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, who besides the old Controversie of the Aegyp∣tians, had another private Quarrel with Theodoret about the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of A∣lexandria. He wrote to Domnus, who had succeeded John in the See of Antioch, that it was told him, that Theodoret Preaching publickly at Antioch, had divided the Person of Jesus Christ into Two. Theodoret having seen this Letter, which was given to him in the Seventh Year of the Pontificate of Domnus, in 447, he wrote the Eighty Third Letter to Dioscorus, wherein he complains, that Dioscorus had given Credit to the Testimony of a few Persons so easily. He opposes to their Testimony the infinite number of those who had heard the Ser∣mons which he Preached at Antioch in Twenty Six Years time under Three Arch-bishops, without incurring blame from any person for that matter. He professes to follow the judg∣ment of the Fathers, to defend the Doctrine of the Nicene Council, and to acknowledge but One Jesus Christ the Son of God, as he did confess but One Father, and One Holy Ghost. He proves this Truth likewise, and shews, That tho' there are Two Natures in Jesus Christ, there is nevertheless but One Jesus Christ, to whom the Proprieties of the Two Natures agree. He adds, That he hath taken this Doctrine out of the Writings of S. Alexander, S. Athanasius, and S. Basil, and that his Writings make it appear, that he made use of the Books of Theophi∣lus, and S. Cyril, to confute the Errours of those, that say, That One of the Two Natures hath been changed into the other; That he hath written to S. Cyril, and that that Saint re∣ceived his Letters; That he hath read and admired his Books against Julian; That he wrote to him upon that Subject, and that he yet hath the Answer which he made S. Cyril. He then desires Dioscorus not to harken to his Calumniators, nor to reject him from his Communion; and after he hath Cited his Books as Authentick Witnesses of the Purity of his Faith, he con∣cludes with this Protestation, If any one refuseth to confess, that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, or says, that Jesus Christ our Lord is but a mere Man, or divides him into Two, he, who is the only Son of God, and the first Born of every Creature, Let him lose all the hope which he hath in God. Altho' Theodoret seemed to have fully justified himself by this Letter, nevertheless Dioscorus gave not over his Enterprize, and instead of rejecting the Calumnies which were so

ill grounded, he called together his Accusers, caused them publickly to pronounce him Accur∣sed, and did the same himself. When Theodoret heard it, he implored the help of other Bishops, but particularly Flavian Bishop of Constantinople. The Letter which he wrote to him is the Eighty Sixth. After he hath related the Attempt of Dioscorus, he says, that he heard, that that Bishop of Alexandria had sent some of his Bishops to Constantinople, hoping to raise great Commotions against him, but he put his Confidence chiefly in God, since he is Assaulted upon the account of the true Faith, and next in the protection of Flavian, whom he prays to maintain the Orthodox Faith, and vindicate the Canons, which were slighted.

For, saith he, the Fathers of the Council held at Constantinople, following the determination of the Nicene Council, have distinguished the bounds of Diocesses, expresly forbidding the Bishops of one Diocess to eńcroach upon the Rights of another. They ordered the Bishop of Alex∣andria not to concern himself but in Aegypt only, and have left to others the Government of their own Diocesses. But Dioscorus contemning these Laws, boasts that his See is S. Mark's, that he may assume the Rights that do not belong to him. We might oppose to him, that the Church of Antioch was the See of S. Peter, the Prince and Head of the Apostles. But we do not regard the Dignity of the See, we know and keep within the bounds of Humi∣lity which the Apostles have taught us. Theodoret says further to engage Flavian on his side, that Dioscorus had hated him ever since he consented to the Rules made in the time of Pro∣clus, in favour of the See of Constantinople.

He wrote also Letters to Domnus Bishop of Antioch, to the Bishops of Cilicia, and to many Officers of the Emperour's Court, whom he fills with Complaints. We may see upon this subject the Eighty Third Letter, and the fol∣lowing to the One Hundred and Tenth.

But all his endeavours were to no purpose; he became every Day more and more odious to the Emperour, and the main thing that was sought, was an occasion to ruin him. This was thought a very fit One, to Depose Irenaeus, whom he had Ordain'd Bishop of Phoenicia. Two Faults were found with that Ordination. The first was, That Irenaeus was a Nestorian, and did not believe that the Virgin ought to be called the Mother of God. The other was, That he had been Twice Married. The Emperour wrote to Domnus to Depose him. Theodoret tells him in his Hundred and Tenth Letter, that he could not do it without an Offence against God, because he had Ordained him pursuant to the Declaration of the Bishops of Phoe∣nicia, who had judged him worthy to be a Bishop for his rare Vertues; and as to that charge, That he had been Twice Married, he had passed by the ordinary Rules according to the Ex∣ample of Alexander Bishop of Antioch, who with Acacius Bishop of Beraea had Ordain'd Dio∣genes, a Man Twice Married, and of Prailus Bishop of Jerusalem, who also had Ordain'd Domnus Bishop of Caesarea, altho' he was Twice Married. That, in fine, Proclus had ap∣proved the Ordination of Irenaeus, and the Bishops of Pontus, Palaestine, and Cappadocia, had acknowledged him, and that no Man had ever called in Question the Validity of it; That it was unjust after this to condemn him; That Domnus ought to represent these things to the Em∣perour; That he could nevertheless Answer otherwise, if he judged it fit; That as to himself, he expected to suffer the utmost; That he believed in the last place, that the best Expedient were to wait the Answer of the Bishops of Palaestine, to write unanimously to Constantinople. He wrote at the same time the Third Letter to Irenaeus, wherein he signifies to him obscurely, that he ought not to withdraw himself, if he were not forced to it.

But another Business was brought upon the Stage against Theodoret; he was accused, that he had evil-intreated and unjustly condemned the Accusers of Ibas. He defends himself against that Accusation in the Hundred and Eleventh Letter to Anatolius, by telling him, that he was none of the Judges, being detain'd at Cyrus by the Emperor's Order; That he had no part in that Judgment, but that Domnus had done his Duty in reviewing their Affair, not only as to the Judgment of Ibas, but also of Simeon Bishop of Amida, to the end that their Cause might be judged by Two different Metropolitans. He complains, that in all other Countries the Bishops were at ease, and that no regard was had to any but the Eastern Bishops; That whatso∣ever their Malicious Adversaries could invent against them, was harkened to. That as to himself, there was less reason to Accuse him than any other, since he had kept himself quietly in his own Diocess according to the Emperor's Order, and that he had not assisted at Two Or∣dinations made in his Province. He adds, That if he were not detain'd by the Emperor's Order, he would retire altogether for the remaining part of his Life.

The Calling of a Council at Ephesus under Dioscorus affrighted Theodoret. He foresaw easi∣ly enough, that he could hope for nothing from a Synod, where Dioscorus his Adversary pre∣sided, and ruled all. Also when Domnus sent him the Letter of the Convocation, which was directed to him, he signifies to him by his Hundred and Twelfth Letter, the Fear he had, that this Synod would have but a very bad issue, if God did not disappoint the designs of Men, for tho' the Council of Nice had condemned Arius, and the Bishops of his Party had con∣sented to his Condemnation, yet they had continued in their Impeity, and troubled the Church for many Years; That he feared yet worse of this present Synod, because the other Diocesses did not discover the Poison of the Twelve Chapters, and that only considering the Reputation of him that composed them, this was the Cause, that they suspected no ill in them; That he did not doubt but that his Successor would do what in him lay to have them confirmed in a Second Council:

For having already pronounced, saith he, Anathema against

those who would not approve them, what will he not do at the head of a Council? But saith he, further to Domnus, be it well known to you, that none of those Bishops who have espyed the Heresie that is co••••••ed in those propositions, will ever give their Approbation of them, altho' the number of them that should Ordain it be as great again. We have al∣ready resisted them, altho' many Bishops had approved them at Ephesus, nor did we com∣municate with the Author of them, till he had declared his consent plainly to that Explanati∣on of the Faith, which we had presented to him without mentioning the Twelve Chapters.

He proves afterwards by Authentick Records, that the Bishops of the East had always con∣demned them, and exhorts Domnus not to forsake the Faith of his Ancestors, and not to re∣ceive a strange Doctrine. It is plain, that this Letter was written a little before the Council in 449.

The Council of Ephesus did worse than Theodoret had foretold, for it approved the Doctrine of Euryches, rejected the Faith of the Church, condemned Flavian, and pronounced a Sen∣tence of Deposition against Theodoret without hearing him, or citing him. But he in many Leters made it appear immediately, that he was unjustly Condemned by them.

The largest and most considerable, is, that which he wrote to S. Leo, to whom he made his Appeal in this Urgent Necessity, it is the Hundred and Thirteenth Letter. After he hath Complimented him about his Primacy, the Greatness and Prerogatives of his Church, and the Purity of his Doctrine, explain'd in his excellent Letter to Flavian. He describes the Injustice that Dioscorus had committed, not only as to Flavian, but also as to himself, in Deposing him so irregularly; that is to say, in his absence, without having cited him Judicially, without questioning him, without having ordered his Process, and after he had caused him to make Ex∣cuses of coming to the Council. He next proves his own Innocence chiefly, by the unblama∣ble manner in which he had managed the Government of his Diocess. Lastly, He implores the help and protection of S. Leo, and prays him to send for him to Rome, that he may Justifie by his Writings, that his Doctrine is throughly conformable to that of the Roman Church. But above all things, he beseeches him to let him know, whether he ought to yield to that un∣just Sentence, that he would wait his Advice thereupon, and if he thought it best for him to abide there, he will do it freely, that he will be troublesome to no Man, any more, but wait patiently the Just Judgment of God, that as for himself, he valued his own Reputation but little, but that he was afraid of giving scandal, and being an occasion of falling to the Weak, who believing his Doctrine Heretical might fall into Error.

He wrote at the same time to Renatus, a Priest of the Church of Rome, to desire him to put forward his proposition, with his Bishop, of Assembling a Council in his Church, pro∣mising to submit himself to his Judgment, be it what it will. He also quotes his own Wri∣tings as an Authentick Proof of the Truth of his Faith. This is the Hundred and Sixteenth Letter.

The Hundred and Seventeenth Letter is directed to the Bishop of Florence, if we follow the Title, but the Body of the Letter makes it appear, that it was written to many Bishops, or to the whole Clergy. He represents to them the Injustice that was done him, and implores their Assistance. He makes the like Complaints to the Arch-Deacon of Rome, by the Hun∣dred and Eighteenth Letter, and to Anatolius Patricius by the Hundred and Nineteenth, and Hundred Twenty First Letters, to Uranius Bishop of Emesa in the Hundred Twenty Third, and Hundred Twenty Fourth Letters, to Bishop Timothy by the Hundred and Thirtieth Letter, to Ibas Bishop of Edessa by the Hundred Thirty Second Letter, to John Bishop of Germanicia by the Hundred Thirty Third, and Hundred Forty Seventh Letters, and many others. All these Letters were written towards the end of the Year 449, or at the beginning of the Year 450, from the Monastery whither he had retired. The Hundred Twenty Fifth, Hundred Forty Fourth, Hundred Forty Fifth, and Hundred Forty Sixth, are Explications of the Faith writ∣ten at the same time, and from the same place; as also the Hundred Twenty Sixth Letter to Sabinian Bishop of the Pareni, who having been deposed in the Council of Ephesus, was retreated. Theodoret commends him for his Valour.

At the end of this Year the Face of things was changed by the Death of Theodosius. Mar∣cian who Succeed him, made the Judgment of the Council of Ephesus, held under Dioscorus, to be void, and restored Theodoret who had been driven out of Cyrus. He then wrote many Letters to his Friends, either to complain of them who had forsaken him, as he doth in the Hundred Thirty Fourth, and Hundred Thirty Fifth; or to return them thanks who had assisted him, and opposed his Enemies, as he doth in the Hundred Thirty Seventh, Hundred and Forty, Hundred and Forty One, Hundred Forty Two, and Hundred Forty Three, or to make them some part of a means, and pray them to obtain it of the Emperor, that a new Council might be called to settle the Peace of the Church, and uphold the Orthodox Faith. This is what he desires of Anatolius in the Hundred Thirty Eighth Letter, and Asparus the Consul, in the Hundred Thirty Ninth Letter.

These are the principal Letters of Theodoret, the other, which contain nothing Historical, are either Letters of Rejoicing upon some Festival, or Letters of Consolation, Thanks, Re∣commendation, and Congratulation to his Friends. The Twenty Ninth, and the following Let∣ters, recommend the Orthodox Banished from Carthage in 442. The Forty Second, and Four following, are written to obtain the discharge of a Sum which was demanded of his Country,

the payment of which was sollicited by a Wicked Excommunicated Bishop. The Seventy Seventh, and Seventy Eighth, shew to the Bishops of Armenia, near adjoining to Persia, what they ought to do in time of Persecution. Theodoret in all his Letters discovers a great deal of Piety, Charity, and Humility; these have all the Qualifications which ••ender Letters valua∣ble, for they are Short, Plain, Neat, Elegant, Civil, Pleasant, full of Matter, Wit, and Ho∣liness.

There is no necessity of making a further Description of Theodoret; what we have related of his Life, the Judgment which we have passed upon all his Works in particular, and what we have spoken of his Letters, are sufficient to give a full Idea of his Conversation, Learning, and Eloquence.

As to his Doctrine, we shall have frequent occasion to speak of it. Notwithstanding we see by his Conduct hitherto, that tho' he defended the Person of Nestorius, he never maintain'd his Errors; he always professed his belief of One Jesus Christ, God and Man in One Person; he never divided, but only distinguished the Two Natures; he never disapproved the Term of the Mother of God, and gave advice to Nestorius and Irenaeus to use it▪ This is true, that he never would approve the Chapters of S. Cyril, but it was, because he thought they con∣tain'd in them that Error which was after maintain'd by Eutyches. In fine, he Explains in so many places of his Works, the Doctrine of the Incarnation in so Orthodox and Exact Terms; that he cannot be accused of Error in that point without a great deal of Injustice. S. Cyril hath accused him of being in that Error, but he also accuses all the Oriental Bishops of the same, which after he acknowledged to be Orthodox, after they had signed the Confession of Faith, which was made in order to the Peace, which because Theodoret approved, he ought to be accounted Orthodox. The Eastern Bishops were not obliged to approve of the 12 Chapters of S. Cyril to be accounted Orthodox; why then should Theodoret be obliged to do it? M. Mercator rails on Theodoret, and finds Errors in his Books against S. Cyril: But the very places, which he cites, justifie him, and 'tis only by Consequences, which Theodoret disowns, and which do not follow from his Principles, that M. Mercator extracts his Errors. As to the Authors which lived in the time of the 5th. Council, or since that time, they ought not to be alledged, because we know, That they were Parties in this Cause, or followed the Judgment of the 5th. Council, of which we shall speak hereafter. If we desire to know the Defenders of Theodoret, we shall find Men worthy of Credit, John Bishop of Antioch, all the Bishops of the East, all his Hearers at Antioch, are so many Witnesses of the Purity of his Faith. S. L•••• was an Apologist for him, and the Emperor Marcian declared him Innocent. The Council of Chalcedon owned him for a Bishop, and did not oblige him to any retractation, but only to say Anathema to Nestorius. Many other Authors might be produced, which defended him against Calumny. But his best Defence are his Writings themselves, his Protestations, Declarations, Explanations of Faith, which cannot be accused of Heresie without condemning also the Let∣ter of S. Leo to Flavian, the Writings of the most Orthodox Fathers, and the Forms of Do∣ctrine which the Church of God hath always used.

I will not stay any longer to speak of the particular Opinions which are attributed to Theo∣doret. Every one knows, That he wasof the Judgment of the Greeks touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost. The Controversie upon the Passages of the Eucharist are too famous and too common to be unknown. It would be to no purpose to repeat in this place what hath been so often insisted upon. He is accused of being a Pelagian, and that he knew no∣thing of Original Sin. But this is certain, That he was not of Pelagian Principles, since he owns, That Death, our propensity to evil, Concupiscence, are the effects of the Sin of the first Man. He also often acknowledgeth the necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ, and begs his Assistance. But he is not of the Principles of S. Austin concerning the nature of Original Sin and Efficacy of Grace. He follows those of S. Chrysostom, to whose Opinion he joins himself.

We have spoken of the principal Editions of the Works of Theodoret in particular. The first Collection which was made of them, was made up of Versions only. It was printed at Collen in 1573. and at Paris 1608. [also at Collen 1567, 1617.] F. Sirmondus hath printed these Collections in Greek with the Latin by the side. This Edition is disposed into 4▪ ••ol. in Folio, printed at Paris in 1642. F. Garner a little while since hath added a 5th. Vol. printed in 1684. This last contains, besides the pieces of Theodoret which we have spoken of, 4 Disser∣tations of F. Garner, upon the Life, Works and Doctrine of Theodoret, whom he inveighs much against. The Dialogues of Maximus, upon the Trinity, which he attributes to Theodo∣ret, a Dissertation upon the 5th. Council, the Collection of Pieces which F. Lupus had print∣ed in 1682. A Treatise of Eutherius of Tyana, which was among the Works of S. Athanasius, and the different Readings of the Treatise of Theodoret against the Gentiles, collected by Ursinus.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Theodoret.
• * 1.2

  * Historia Religiosa, or Philotheus.
• a 1.3

  Devote him to God, &c.] Hence he was called Theodoret, either because he was given by God, or devoted to God. Eustathius and Suidas observe, That we ought to read and pronounce his Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Theodorit, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Theo∣doret. The Ancients call him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Manuscripts write him so; notwith∣standing Usage hath corrupted the Latin Name, and made him called Theodoret. The more Learned indeed call him always Theodorit, but if we should call him Theodorit in the French, it would not be known what we mean. The Greeks do not give him the Name of Saint, because he hath written against S. Cyril, and the Fifth Council hath imprinted a Mark of Disgrace upon his Memory.
• b 1.4

  About the Year 420.] In his Letter 81. to Nomus the Consul, he says, He had then been Bishop, Twenty five Years. He sets down the same Time in his Eightieth Letter to Eutrechius. Nomus was Consul in 445. Out of which, if we take 25 Years, the remainder will be 420. But in the 113th Letter, written to S. Leo, after the Conven∣ticle of Ephesus, in 449, he saith, There were 26 Years since he was Bishop. This will prove but only, that he was so in 423. The Difference is of small consequence.
• d 1.5

  Others had written before him, &c.] Those, whom he hints by the by without naming them, are, Apol∣linarius, whose Commentaries were full of Allego∣ries; Theodorus of Mopsuesta, who was too much pleased with the Explications of the Jews; and S. Chry∣sostom, whose Commentaries are too large.
• a 1.6

  After theirs.] Cassiodorus, Theodorus Lector and Photius, name Theodoret last of these Three Eccle∣siastical Authors. Theodoret corrects some of their Errors; he clears the History of S. Athanasius, and relates a great many things which concern the ••astern Church, which the other Two Authors had not reported; particularly what concerns Meletius, Fl••vi••n, Eusebi•••• of Samosata, and other Oriental Bishops. This seems to be the meaning of that which he hath written in the beginning, That his Design is to write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the remaining part of Ecclesiastical Hi∣story, although it may be understood of the Conti∣nuation of Eusebius.
• b 1.7

  About the Year 450.] Theodoret, in his 82d. Letter to Eusebius, written in the Year 445. making a Catalogue of his Works, doth not mention his History. It is manifest that he wrote it after the Council of Ephesus, since he speaks, l. 5. c. 36. of the Translation of the Reliques of S. Ch••ysostom, made in 438. He speaks of the Contests which were raised in the Church about the Incarnation, and seems to take notice of the Doctrines of Eu••yches, l. 5. c. 3. He wrote it before the Death of Theodosius, which happen'd on July 29. 450. be∣cause he speaks of that Emperor, as then reigning, l. 5. c. 36. In the same Book, c. 35. he counts Thir∣ty Years from the Martyrdom of Abdas, which is put in 420.
• c 1.8

  Ends in 428.] Gennadius saith, that he conti∣nued it to the Time of the Emperor Leo, and that he had done it in Ten Books; This would make us believe that we have lost the Five last; but there is no likelihood that he hath composed more than Five. He declares in the End of his Fifth Book, That he hath ended his History there. Ev••grius saith, in the beginning of his, That the History of Theo∣doret ends at the Empire of Theodosius the Younger, at the Time of the Death of Theodorus, and just when Sisinnius was made Bishop. Photius says the same thing. Lastly, No Man ever saw these five last Books. It is true, that Theodorus, in his Colle∣ctions, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. cites Theodoret in the Business of Petrus Mongus and Calendion. S. John Damascene, in his Third Book of Images, cites some Places of the History of Theodoret which are not to be found there; but they are mistaken, for by their account Theodoret must have lived till he was an hundred Years old. Their Words have given occasion to some to conje∣cture, That there was another Theodoret, the Author of an History, younger; and F. Garner pret••nds that it was a Bishop of Alindes in Cari••, who assisted at the Council of Constantinople un∣der Men••as: But this seems to me very doubt∣ful; we had better say, that these two Authors, who in other Matters are not exact, are mistaken in this.
• d 1.9

  Some Faults.] Here are some Examples of them: He places the Death of Ari••s among the Circumstances of the Council of Nice, l. 1. c. 14. He makes Eusebius of Nicomedia successor to Alex∣ander in the See of A••ti••c••, ibid. c. 16. He relates the Election of Eusebius of C••sare••, to fill the See of Antioch, after the Death of E••l••lius, c. 21. He makes S. At••anasius's Exile to continue Five Months longer than it did, l. 2. c. 1. He fixes the Ordination of S. Ambrose in the beginning of Valentinian, altho' it did not happen till 370. l. 4. c. 5. He commits a like Fault almost in relating the Sedition of Anti••••h, after the Murder of Thessalo••ica. He mistakes in the Number of the Bishops of the Council of Sardica. He counts 250. l. 2. c. 7. when they were no more than 170. He confounds the Seige which the Per∣sians laid before Nisibis in 350▪ with that which they laid there in 359, l. 5. c. 3. He says, That Paulinus refused the Agreement which Meletius offered him, as it appears by the Letters of the Bishops of Italy, l. 4. c. 30. He is also mistaken ch. 8. ibid. where he hath written, That Maximus was Ordain∣ed Bishop of Constantinople by Timo••heus, whenas it was his Successor Peter that ordained him.
• e 1.10

  Baronius bei••g prejudiced, &c.] Theodoret puts the Deposition of Eust••thi••s Bishop of Antioch in 330. Baronius reproves him, but he is mistaken, for Eu∣sebius confirms the Opinion of Theodoret. Baronius accuses him further, for being too Favourable to Meletius and Flavian, but 'tis rather the Cardinal, who was too much incensed against them.
• * 1.11

  [1535. Dr. Cave.]
• * 1.12

  [Historia Religi••sa, Dr. Cave.]
• * 1.13

  [3 a Clock in the Af∣ternoon.]
• * 1.14

  [This Book was printed by it self in Greek, at Rome, in 1547. In Greek and Latin, with Beumler's Note, at Zurich in 1593. In Greek at Leips. in 1568.]
• a 1.15

  Before the Year 448.] Theodoret speaks of this Treatise, in his Sixteenth Letter to Irenaeus, and Eighty third to Dioscorus. The First was written in 448. and the Second in 449. before Dioscorus was condemned; it was then precedent to these two Letters, but yet was made after the Death of S. Cyril, whom he there cites among the Fathers, whose Authorities he produces, and in the Time when the Quarrel, which broke out upon the Account of Eutyches, began to be formed.
• * 1.16

  [These Books have been printed alone in ••reek at Rome in 1••••8.
• * 1.17

  [De cu∣randis affe∣ctionibus Graeco••um. Dr. Cave.]
• a 1.18

  Irrecoverably lost.] F. Garner pretends, That these are the Dialogues in S. Athanasius, but it is more probable that they are Maximus's. See what we have already said in the Notes, upon the Works of S. Athanasius, Vol. 2.
• * 1.19

  [Responsi∣ones ad quaesita Ma∣gorum.]
• † 1.20

  [Opus m••∣••••icum, sive de Mysterio∣rum▪ idei expositione, l. 12.]