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.

CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS.

CLAUDIANUS MAMERIUS, a Priest of the Church of Vienna, and Brother of the Bishop of that City, commended by Sidonius Apollinaris, hath composed Three Books * 1.1 Of the State, or Nature of the Soul, which are found in Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 6.] Genna∣dius informs us, That he wrote some other Treatises, and that he is the Author of the Hymn upon the Passion, which begins with these Words, Pange Lingua Gloriosi, which others attri∣bute to Venantius Fortunatus; but besides that Gennadius, and the Ancient Scholiast, restore it to Claudius Mamertus, it likewise appears that this is that Hymn which Sidonius extolls in Ep. 3. Lib. 4.

The Books of the Nature of the Soul are a confutation of Faustus Reiensis, who had made a little Book, in which he maintain'd, That God only is Incorporeal, and that all Creatures, and the Soul of Man it self, are Corporeal. To prove this, he brings the Authority of S. Jerom, and Cassian. Afterwards he makes use of several Reasons. The Soul, says he, is in a place, it hath its dimensions. It is therefore Corporeal. Its Thoughts and Fancy can extend themselves to things far distant, but its Substance is inclosed in the Body, for 'tis that which ani∣mates it, and gives it Life. So long as Lazarus's Soul was in his Body, he Lived, but as soon as it was departed from it, he Died, and he received a new Life when Jesus Christ made his Soul return again to his Body. The same may be said of the Soul of Jesus Christ. In a word, how can it be said, That a Substance which is contained in the Flesh, which pre∣serves the Life of it, and that Dies by the separation, is not in a place? If the Soul hath not a determinate place, how can it be said that the Souls of Sinners are in Hell, and of Just Men in Heaven? What is that Chaos that separates them? Why are not they also happy? Are not also the Angels in a determinate place? Are not they said to ascend, and descend? Lastly, If any Creature be not in a place, it must be said to be every where. Now nothing is in all places but God. These are the Reasonings, which Faustus of Ries uses in that little Book, which he Published without putting his Name to it, as Mamertus upbraids him in the beginning of his Confutation. He knew not whose it was, or at least doth not say he did. 'Tis from Gennadius that we learn that it was Faustus's of Ries.

It is evident by Mamertus's Answer, That we have not that Writing perfect, for in the first part he had asserted, That the Divinity suffered in Jesus Christ, not in its own Nature, but by a Compassionate Sense. This Mamertus confutes in the first place, shewing, That that Ex∣pression is false and new, because it cannot be said in any sense, that the Divinity of Jesus Christ hath endured Grief, altho' it may be asserted by reason of the Unity of the Two Na∣tures in One Person, that God suffered. In the next place he proves, That the Soul is In∣corporeal, because it was made in the Image of God. He confesses, that all things that are invisible, are not Spiritual, and gives for an Example of it, the Judgment of the Senses, which is invisible, but he asserts, That the Bodily Sense is of the same Nature with the Ele∣ments, whereas the Soul doth not depend upon them, nor was formed out of them, but enli∣vens the matter. To confute the Objections of the Book which he undertakes to Answer, he says, That every thing that is incorporeal is not uncreated; That the Angels have Bodies really, but they have also a Spirit and Soul. He maintains, That S. Jerom, and the Philoso∣phers likewise, were of the same Opinion, when they held. That Men after the Resurrection would be exactly like the Angels, because they would have a Body as thin and subtile as

theirs, and a Soul. He wonders, that any Christians should be so very dull as to imagine, that they shall see God with their Bodily Eyes. Having made some such like Observations, he comes to the great difficulty. The Soul is in the Body, it is in a place, Ergo, 'Tis ex∣tended, and consequently Corporeal. He demands of his Adversary, in what part of the Body it is. Is it in the whole, and in every part? If it be in all the Body, why doth it exercise its thoughts in one place only o•• If it may be divided into parts, why doth it not lose its strength when my Member is cut off? This he says to intangle his Enemy. But he must Answer the difficulty, and for the perfect resolution of it he distinguishes Motion into Three sorts, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Local•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that which is performed in no place. The First agrees to God only, the Second to Co•…•… Creatures, and the Last is that which is proper to Spiri∣tual Creatures. God wills always the same thing, this is a Stable Motion; A Body moves from one place to another, this is a Local Motion; The Soul chuses a thing, and again re∣fuses it, sometimes Hates, sometimes Hates, is sometimes Humble, sometimes Proud, some∣times Me••••y, sometimes Sad, &c. These are the Motions of a Creature which are not Lo∣cal; The effects 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perceived in a place, but they are not done in a place. As for exam∣ple, If a Man thinks upon a Mathematical Figure, and to write some Name, his Soul con∣templates the Immutable Idaea's of these things, his Arm and Hand writes them on the Pa∣per by a Local Motion. 'Tis not his Soul that is Locally moved, but without it his Arm could not perform so regular Motions. You will say, perhaps, That it is that part of the Soul which is in the Arm that is Locally moved; if that be so, then the Soul is divisible. Now that can't be, for all things that can be divided, may be handled by parts, and act accord∣ing to their parts. Now the Soul acts all together in all its Motions, it has neither length, nor breadth▪ no•• heighth▪ it is neither moved upwards, nor downwards, nor in a circle; it hath neither inward nor outward parts; it thinks, perceives, and imagines, in all its substance; it is all Understanding, Sense, and Imagination; and in a word, we may Name the Quality of the Soul, but no Man knows how to express the Quantity of it. Wherefore 'tis neither extended, nor in a place.

Having thus settled the Nature of the Soul of Man, he shews how it differs from the Soul of Beasts, and Plants. The main difference is this, That these last have no knowledge. The Beasts may have the Images of Bodies impressed on their Brain, but they know them not, nor know the things themselves, whereas the Soul of Man knows things Corporeal by the Body, and Spiritual without a Body; sometime it doth not apply it self to things which make an impression upon its Body. I read, another hears me, and understands what I read, but I my self, if my Mind be elsewhere, know not what I have read. My Soul is present to make me perceive the Letters, but not to make me understand what I read.

But may some say, The Substance of the Soul is one thing, its Operation is another. You are mistaken in confounding the Thoughts of the Soul with the Substance of the Soul. The Soul is sometimes without Thoughts; Besides, when the Soul thinks, 'tis in the Body, and by the Body that it thinks. They are the Corporeal Images of Objects that make it think, and it would never remember any thing if these Images were not impressed upon the Brain. This is as far as the difficulty can be urged. But Mamertus gives such an Answer as leaves no intricacy behind it. The Soul, saith he, is not different from the Thoughts, altho' the things, upon which the Soul thinks, are different from the Soul it self. It is not true, that the Soul is at any time without thoughts; it can very easily change its thoughts, but to be without is impossible, and it is wholly there where its thoughts are fixed, because it is all thought. You are mistaken in distinguishing the powers of the Soul from the Soul it self; altho' it be accidental to it to think upon this or that Object, yet its Essence is, That it is a thinking Substance. The same is to be said of the Will, it is by accident that it chuses this, or that, but its Substance is to Will. It is all Thought, all Will, all Love. It is said of God, that he is Love, but he is Essentially Love, Essentially Loving that which is Good. The Soul is also Love, but such a Love as can incline it self to God, or the Creatures, to Good, or Evil. But upon whatsoever Object it is fixed, it is always truly said, that the Soul is all Love, no such thing can be found in the Body. Now to prove, That the Thoughts of the Soul do not depend on the Body, and are not Corporeal, our Author makes use of some Examples in Geometry. We conceive, saith he, what a Point, Line, Circle, and perfect Triangle is; Can the Corporeal Figures of these things be represented? They never have been, and never will be. Yet the Soul conceives them, and knows the properties of them. The Soul knows its Thoughts, its Desires, its Love. Is this done by any Corporeal Image? No certainly, It is the inward Truth, which speaks to it, which makes it understand, that the Thought is distinct from the Speech. Lastly, The Soul inquires after God, knows him, hath it any image of the Divine Nature but it self?

These are the Principles which Mamertus hath laid down in his First Book concerning the Substance of the Soul. I have added nothing, but kept my self almost always to his Words, which I think fit to remark, because his Philosophy hath so great a resemblance to the Medi∣tations of a Famous Modern Philosopher, that I may seem to have this rather from him, than Mamertus, or at least, that I have put some new Air upon it. But 'tis no such thing, 'tis the Truth it self, which causes this Agreement between Two Philosophers. They had both of them rational and exact Minds, they followed the same train of Thoughts, and having freed

themselves from all Natural and Childish Prejudices, they found out the true Nature of the Soul, and the Adequate Idaea of a Spiritual Substance. The only difference between them is, that Mamertus enlarges upon, proves, and throughly discusses those Principles, which this Modern Philosopher contents himself to propound as Truths well enough known. He doth not relie upon what he hath said in his First Book, but confirms his Arguments in the Second and Third Book. In the Second he examines more at large, what he had asserted in the First, That the Soul had neither Weight nor Measure according to Quantity, but accord∣ing to Quality. He proves this to be the Opinion of the Heathen Philosophers, the greatest part of whom he maintains to have thought the Soul Incorporeal. He adds the Testimony of the Ecclesiastical Writers, and cites in particular S. Ambrose, and S. Austin, S. Jerom. He owns, That S. Hilarius Pictaviensis did not favour his Opinion, because he hath written, that all Creatures were Corporeal, and believed that Jesus Christ had not suffered. Yet in his defence saith, That he did extinguish the Crime by the Virtue of Confession, and tho' these places of his Writings might be reproved, yet that did lessen his Worth. He Quotes S. Eucherius with Applause, and speaks Contemptibly of his Adversaries. Lastly, He proves the Soul to be an Immortal Spirit from Texts of Holy Scripture.

In the last Book he explains the other difficulties that still remained. It was Objected, That the Soul is contained in the Body, and consequently, is in a place. He demands how it can be, that the Soul should be in the Body, and yet penetrate all parts of the Body. Is it without, and not within? Or is it within, and not without? Or is it within, and with∣out? It is harder to resolve, than to understand, how a Spirit can move a Body Locally, altho' it be not Locally in the Body. But how, may some say, can the Soul be in a place, and not be there Locally? I Ask you, Whether the World be in a place▪ or not? If you say, That it is in a place, you will be obliged to tell, what that place is. Is it in the World, or not? If it be out of the World, where is it? You are then obliged to hold, that the World is infinite, or say, that it is in no place. But how, say they, that the Soul of Jesus Christ departed from his Body after his Death, if it were not in his Body as in its place? If this be a good consequence, saith Mamertus, we must also assert, That the Divinity of Je∣sus Christ was also in his Body as in a place, because it was no longer united to the Body of Jesus Christ. The Angels have Bodies, by which they become Visible. The Devils have one, by which they suffer. These Bodies are not borrowed, but their own proper Bodies, yet they have also Spiritual Souls. Lastly, To resolve the last Objection, That the Souls of the Wicked are in Hell, and the Souls of the Just in Heaven, he says, If this ought to be understood of different places, how could Abraham and Dives hear and talk to one another? How could he see Lazarus in Abraham's Bosom? Hell and Paradise ought not to be thought different places, but different conditions. The Just and the Unjust may be Locally in the same place, but their state is not at all altered. The Soul sees things Incorporeal, which are not Locally present with it, yet discerns not things Corporeal, which are united to it, when it cannot make use of the Bodily Eyes to see them. Nothing is more nearly joined to the Soul, than the Heart, Bowels, or the Brain, and yet doth it see them?

But some may say, That the Soul is Corporeal in the Eyes of God, but Spiritual in its own Eyes. This is a false distinction, saith our Author, for either it is Spiritual, or Corporeal. If it be Spiritual, God knows it to be such; if it be Corporeal, it knows its self to be such, as it really is.

And what is the Conclusion of the whole? That Man is compounded of Two Substances, the one Spiritual, the other Corporeal; the one Immortal, the other Mortal, that is, a Soul and a Body. This is also the Conclusion of Claudianus Mamertus, who at the end of his Treatise had summed up all he hath said in these Ten Principles following.

I. God is Incorporeal; the Soul of Man is the Image of God, which it could not be, if it were not Spiritual.

II. Whatsoever is not in a place is Incorporeal: The Soul is the Life of the Body; this Life is equally in all, and every part of the Body. Therefore the Soul is in no place.

III. The Soul thinks, and its Nature is to think; thinking is an Incorporeal thing, and is in no place, Ergo, the Soul is Incorporeal.

IV. The Will is of the Substance of the Soul, all the Soul wills, it is all Will; the Will is not a Body, Ergo, the Soul is not a Body.

V. The Memory is not in a place, it is not extended; the great number of things which it remembers, doth not make it bigger, nor the small number lessen it; it remembers Corporeal things after an Incorporeal manner. The whole Soul remembers, 'tis all Memory, Ergo, it is not a Body.

VI. The Body cannot be smitten but in that place only that is affected; the Soul feels all at once, when any part of the Body is touched, Ergo, this Sensation is in no place, and by consequence is Spiritual as well as the Soul that feels.

VII. The Body neither draws near to, nor departs from God; it approaches to, or re∣moves from other Bodies. Now the Soul draws near to, or departs from God; it comes not near, or goes far from Bodies Locally, Ergo, it is not a Body.

VIII. The Body moves in a place, and changes its place. The Soul moves not it self af∣ter that manner, Ergo, it is not a Body.

IX. Bodies 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. T••e Soul hath none of these •…•…▪

X. All Bodies have several sides▪ the ri••ht side, the left side, the upper side, the under side▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 the b••ck side▪ all this doth not ag••••e to the Soul, Erg••, ••t is Incorpo∣real.

This Book is D••dicated to Sid••ni•••• Apo••••inari••, who recomp••nses the great Honour Ma∣•…•… did him▪ ••y the la••ge 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he gives the Author, and his Wo••k. He preferrs him abo•••• all the Wri•…•… of that time▪ He commends him as the most able Philosopher▪ and 〈…〉〈…〉 w••••ch was th••n ••••ong the Ch••istians. He says, That he was an absolut•• Ma•…•… of all the S••••e••ces; that the P••••ity of his Language equalled, or surpassed Terence'••, V••rr••'s▪ Pli••••'s▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ Tha•• he knew ••ow to ••se terms of Logick El••quently; That ••is sho••t and concise way of W••iting contain••d the most deep Learning in a few Sentences, and he e••pressed the greatest T••••••h•• in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 few W••••ds. That his Stile was not swelled with empty Hy••erbole's, and did not de••ener••te i••to a Con••••mp••ible Flatness. In fine, He scruples no•• to co••pare him wit•• the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…nt Philosophers, most Eloquent Orators, and most Learn∣ed Fathers of the Church. He Judges, saith he, like Pythagoras, he Divides like Socrates, he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 like Pl••to, ••e Puz••les like Arist••••le, he Delights▪ like Aeschi••es, he stirs up the Pa••••ions like De••••sthenes, he Diver••s with a pleasing Variety like Hortensius, he Embroils like Cethegus▪ ••e Ex••ite•• like Curi••, he Appeases like F••bius, he Feigns like Crassus, he Dissem∣bles like Caes••r, ••e Advises like Cato, he Disswades like Appius, he Perswades like Cicero. And if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 will co••pare him to the Fathers of the Church, he Instructs like S. Jerom, he over••hr••ws E••••o•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lactantius, he maintains the Truth like S. Austin, he Elevates himself like S. Hilary▪ he speaks also as fluently, and as intelligibly▪ as S. Chrysostom, he Reproves like S. Ba••il, he Comforts like S. Gregory Nazianzen, he is Copious like Orosius, and as Ur∣gent ••s Rufinus, he relates a Story as well as Eusebius, he Excites as S. Eucherius, he Stirs up like Paulinus, he Holds up as S. Ambrose.

Altho' all these Commendations are excessive, yet we must own, that this Treatise of Ma∣mertus▪ is very well written, and that he hath joined a great deal of Elegancy with his great Acu••eness, and that he handles the most Metaphysical Questions with all the clearness and pleasa••••ness poss••ble. B••t that which is most worthy of Commendation in him, is the fitness of his Arguments, and subtlety of his Wit, by which he hath discovered and explain'd such very abstruse Tr••ths, as most others have hardly so much as taken notice of.

Sidonius also commends a Poem of Mamertus's, and gives it these praises. It is, says he, Solid, Witty, Pleasant, Lofty, and far excelling all sorts of Verses of that Nature, as well for the Elegancy of the Poetry, as for the Truth of the History. It is plainly the Hymn Of the Passi••n, which begins with Pange Lingua Gloriosi, of which he speaks, as the following de∣scription of it sufficiently evidences. He speaks as highly of it as possible, and wonderfully e••••olls its Beauty. And indeed it is no marvel, being an Oratour, and Mamertus's special Friend. The last of these Qualities taught him to spy out those Excellencies in Mamertus's Books, which others would not perceive, and the first gave him freedom and easiness to ren∣der them both Admirable and Credible to others.

No fitter Person could have been pitched upon to make his Epitaph, so well hath he ac∣quitted himself, and hath not omitted any Epithete which could well be bestowed upon him, [as you may see,

Germani Decus, & Dolor Mamerti, Mira••tum Unica Gemma Episcoporum, Hoc dat Cespite membra Claudianus, Triplex Bibliotheca quo Magistro, Romana, Attica, Christiana▪ fulsit, Qua•• tota Monachus virente in aevo, Secreta bibit Institutione, Orator, Dialecticus, Poeta, Tractator, Geometra, Musicusque, Doctus solvere vincla quaestionum, Et Verbi gladio secare Sectas, Si quae Catholicam fidem lacessunt.]

The Honour and Grief of his Brother. The Pearl of Bishops. A Threefold Library, Greek, Latin, and Christian. He hath joined Divinity with Prophane Sciences. An Orator, Logician, Poet, Writer, Geometrician, Musician. Expert in resolving Difficulties, opposing Heresies, and in composing Hymns and Psalms in Honour of our Saviour.

Altho' he was but a Priest, he performed the Office of a Bishop, his Brother had the Ho∣nour, but he had the Burden of a Bishoprick. Thus much Friendship, and a Poetick Facul∣ty, enabled Sidonius to speak of Mamertus his Friend, who had certainly a large share of those Accomplishments which he attributes to him, tho' it may be he possessed them not in so excellent a degree, as he describes him. We have also a Poem of his, wherein he shews, That Christian Poets ought to abandon Prophane Subjects, and sing Sacred Histories, and Holy Things.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Claudianus Mamertus.