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.

BIBLIOTHECA PATRUM: OR, A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers. TOME III. PART II.

CONTAINING An Account of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the Primitive FATHERS, that Flourished in the latter Part of the Fifth Century of Christianity, with Censures upon all their BOOKS, determining which are Genuine, and which Spurious.

ATTICUS Bishop of Constantinople.

ARSACIUS, the Brother of Nectarius, who had been put into the See of Constanti∣nople, in the Place of S. Chrysostom being dead in the Year of his Ordination, Atticus * 1.1 a Monk of Armenia, after some Contests * 1.2, was chosen to fill that See. He entred up∣on it in the Year 406. and enjoyed it peaceably until the Year 427. in which he dyed. Socrates, who had a very particular Esteem for this Bishop, has described him to us as a Man competently learned, but very wise and prudent, endued with abundance of Piety, Meek∣ness and Charity, who not only took care of the Orthodox, but also won over the Hereticks by his courteous and taking Behaviour. He adds; That while he was a Priest he got his Sermons by Heart; and that, after he was a Bishop, he accustomed himself to speak ex tempore, but that his Discourses were not beautiful enough to gain the Applause of the People, nor to deserve to be put in Writing. So true is it that a Discourse must be studied with an Intent to please. Ne∣vertheless he helped forward the Conversion of many Persons, and very much increased the Church. His Liberality contributed much towards it; for the People are much better disposed to hear and believe their Pastor, when they see that he provides as well for their Temporal as Spiritual Wants, and at the same time he dispenses to them the Bread of Life to nourish their Souls, he also gives them liberally that by which they may procure Nourishment for their Bodies: And this he did, not only to the poor of his own Diocess, but likewise to Strangers. Socrates, in the Seventh Book of his History, Chap 25. recites a Letter which Atticus wrote to Calliopius a Priest of Nice; wherein he tells him, That he had sent him Three hundred Crowns, to relieve the Necessities of the Poor of the City of Nice. He admonishes him, at the same time, to bestow his Charity upon the modest * 1.3 Poor, and to give them nothing who made a Trade of Begging: He would not have him, in this Distribution, to have any Regard to Religion: And recommends it to him, to give that which is necessary to support Life, to all that are in Want, not excepting such as are of a different Religion. Socrates further relates some Answers of this Bishop, in favour of the Novatians; but since this Historian was a Friend to that Party, his Testimony is a little to be suspected: However that be, the Answers that are attributed to him are very moderate, for when one said unto him, That he ought not to suffer the Meetings of the Novatians in the Cities: He answered, Do you not know how much they suffered for the Faith under the Emperours Constantius and Valens? They are Wit∣nesses, beyond Exception, of the Truth of our Doctrine, for having separated themselves a long time from the Church, they are found to have the same Faith with us. He commended Asclepiades, an Ancient Bishop of the Novatians, that he had undergone that Charge for the space of Fifty Years: And he said to this Bishop, I praise Novatus, but cannot approve of the Novatians. Ascle∣piades having demanded of him the Explication of this Paradox; he reply'd, Novatus denyed

not Communion but only to those who had fallen into Idolatry during the Persecution; I have done the same thing my self; but I cannot approve of the Novatians, who exclude the Laity from Com∣munion for trivial Sins. Asclepiades answered him; That besides Idolatry, there were many other Mortal Sins, for which the Church deposeth the Clergy for ever: And that the Novatians did also excommunicate the Laity for ever, who had committed those Sins, leaving the Power of Pardoning them to God only. Socrates tells us further. That Atticus foretold his own Death to Callio∣pius; and that he did die indeed, according to his own Prediction, in the Year 427. in the begin∣ning of October. Besides this Letter, of which we have just now spoken, Theodoret, in his Se∣cond Dialogue, cites a Fragment of a Letter to Eupsychius, concerning the Incarnation. He wrote also a Letter to S. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, To perswade him to put S. Chrysostom's Name in the * 1.4 Diptychs, as we understand by the Answer which S. Cyril made to him, related in the Fourth Book of Facundus; by whom we are informed, That Atticus was as moderate as S. Cyril was angry upon that account. We have Atticus's Letter and S. Cyril's Answer to it among the Epistles of the latter. These Fragments of the Writings of Atticus make it evident, That Socrates hath passed a sound Judgment of his Character, Style, and Temper. Gennadius says, That he had made an excellent Book concerning Faith and Virginity, dedicated to the Princesses, the Daughters of Arcadius; in which he condemns the Error of Nestorius before-hand. S. Cyril cites a Passage of it in his Book to the Empresses; which is also repeated, with another, in the Council of Ephesus; altho Vincentius doth not reckon Atticus among those who were alledged for Witnesses of the Faith of the Church in the Council of Ephesus, and says, That these Passages are not to be found in some Manuscripts of that Council.

TICHONIUS.

TICHONIUS, an African, an ingenious Man, of the Party of the Donatists, was accounted * 1.5 very skilful in the Literal Sence of Holy Scripture. Nor was he wholly ignorant of Profane Sciences, but he was very well versed in Ecclesiastical Studies. He hath composed a Treatise con∣taining Seven Rules, for the explaining of the Holy Scripture; of which S. Austin hath made an Abridgment, in his Third Book of the Christian Doctrine. Gennadius teaches us, That he had also written Three Books of the Intestine War, and a Narration of several Reasons why he quotes the Ancient Synods in the Defence of his own Party. He further adds, That he had made a Com∣mentary upon the Revelation, in which he explains that Book in a Spiritual Sence altogether. He therein did reject the conjectural Opinion of the Millennium; and maintained, That there should be but one Resurrection of the Good and Sinners, which would happen at the same Time: Inso∣much that, according to his Judgment, the first Resurrection of the Just is here below in the Church, when being delivered by Faith from the Death of Sin, they receive by Baptism the earnest of Eternal Life. He affirms, in that Book, That the Angels are Corporeal. He flourished, according to Gennadius, at the same time as Ruffinus and S. Austin, under the Empire of Theodosius the Great, and his two Sons. We have his Book of the Seven Rules, published by Schottus, and inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum: It is very obscure, and of little use. S. Austin's Abridgment of it is to be seen at the End of his Third Book of the Christian Doctrine.

LEPORIUS.

THis Monk is numbred among the Ecclesiastical Authors, upon the account of a Book, which * 1.6 he made to retract the Errors of Pelagius and Nestorius, of which we have spoken in the Works of S. Austin. We may also see what is said of it by S. Leo, among the Testimonies of the Fathers, touching the Verity of the two Natures in Jesus Christ. Facundus Bishop of Harmi∣anum, l. 1. c. 4. Gennadius, c. 59, Cassian in the Book of the Incarnation, c. 4. And Vigilius Tapsensis, l. 2. of the Trinity.

S. ISIDORE of Damiata.

ISIDORE, a 1.7 a Priest b 1.8 of Damiata, † 1.9 a City in Egypt, situated upon the Mouth of the River * 1.10 Nilus, flourished in the Reign of Theodosius the Younger. c 1.11 He embraced a Monastick State, and spent his whole Life in mortifying his Body, by continual Abstinence, and in nourishing his

Soul with Meditation upon Celestial Doctrines, insomuch that it may be said of him, That he lived an Angel's Life upon Earth, and that he was a Living Picture of a Monastick and Contem∣plative Life. He was in so great Reputation for his Piety, Doctrine and Eloquence, that the Greeks gave him the Surname of a 1.12 Famous. Facundus reports, That he had written two thousand Letters. Suidas attributes to him three thousand upon the Holy Scripture, and five thousand upon different Subjects. Nicephorus also reckons ten thousand; but it is almost incredible that he should write so great a number: But however that be, we have no more than 2012. and there are no more * 1.13 extant in the most ancient Manuscripts. He had composed some other Works. b 1.14 He speaks himself of a Treatise of Fate, against the Gentiles. Evagrius makes mention of some Writings of Isidorus to S. Cyril, but it may be he intends the two Letters which he wrote to him, which are still extant, and which are recited by Facundus. By them we are taught, That he was yet alive in the Time of the Council of Ephesus, but he was then very old. The Greek and Latin Church celebrate his Me∣mory on the fourth Day of February.

The Epistles of this Author are all Laconick, that is to say, (as he himself explains it, after S. Gregory Nazianzen) They contain a great many things in a few Words. In writing them he follows the Rule which he gives in the one hundred fifty third Letter of the first Book. He there observes, That they ought not to be void of all sort of Ornament; nor on the other side too curiously polished. The first Defect puts into them such a driness and baseness of Style, that they are thereby rendred over-burdensome to the Reader; but the other makes them weak and ridicu∣lous, and therefore they ought to have so much Ornament as is necessary to render them grateful and profitable. And this he hath marvellously well performed in all his Letters, for they are written with a great deal of Wit and Elegance, and yet there is not the least appearance of affe∣ctation or constraint. His Expressions are fine and delicate, nevertheless he hath not departed from the most natural way of speaking of things. There are no ambiguities nor false Proposi∣tions to be found in them, but they are full of ingenuity and acuteness which runs equally through all of them. Lastly, It may be said of him, That he hath found out the Secret so much search'd after by others, of mingling Profit and Pleasure together. In truth, though he hath many Letters upon Critical Questions, relating to several Places of H. Scripture, and whatsoever is of greatest subtilty in the explication of other Mysteries, yet he wants not Expressions to render them very grateful and acceptable to the Reader. But yet he hath joyned Knowledge and Learning with the Elegancy and Politeness of his Language; and his Letters are a Collection of an infinite number of Common Places in Divinity, very well treated of and cleared. In them we may find a great many Texts of the Old and New Testament explained, and applyed to different Subjects. This is the most common Argument of these Letters. Some there are, wherein he explains and illu∣strates the Mysteries and Doctrines of our Religion; in others he makes Remarks upon the Di∣scipline of the Church: In the greatest part of them he propounds and confirms the great Prin∣ciples of Christian Morality, and teaches in many of them the Rules and principal Maxims of a Spiritual Life. Sometimes he gives lively Instructions, sometimes also he utters smart Reproofs, and more often Charitable Advice. He spares no Man; he speaks with Freedom, Steddiness and Authority, not only to the ignorant Laity, or the Monks subject to his Government, but also to Kings themselves, great Lords, Magistrates, and to Bishops of Sees, to whom he was subject. He opposes Vice where-ever he finds it. He gives sharp Reprimands to all disorderly and vicious Persons, of whatsoever Condition they be. He applies himself to the Persons themselves, and never dis∣sembles what he thinks of them. He not only flatters no Person in their Vices, but he makes use of no cunning Evasions to sweeten his Admonitions. He tells them plainly and severely what he thinks. He represents to them their Irregularities with all the Candor and Cogency possible, and presses them vigorously to forsake them. He commends very seldom, but, when he doth, it is in a way that is not mean, and that cannot puff up with foolish Pride. This in general is the subject of S. Isidore's Epistles, let us consider them in particular.

Of the Letters of S. Isidore upon the Holy Scripture.

The greatest and best part of S. Isidore's Letters, are upon several Texts of Holy Scripture. There is hardly a Book, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, of which he doth not ex∣plain several Texts. He often recommends the Reading of Holy Scripture, and gives excellent Rules for the good Use and true Understanding of it.

He requires, That every one that attempts to read it, should prepare himself, by purifying his Heart, and purging it from Passions and Vice, l. 4. 133. That in reading it all-a-long he should not only endeavour to comprehend the Sence, but labour earnestly to believe and practise what it teacheth, l. 4. 33. He adds, That we must read it with a great deal of Reverence, and not seek to dive into the incomprehensible Mysteries, l. 1. 24. That God hath, with much Reason, ordered That there should be in Holy Scripture some things very plain, and other places very obscure, as a mark of his Wisdom and Providence; for if all of it were clear, what would Man have to stir

up his Attention? And if all of it were obscure, how would it be possible to understand it? That which is evident explains that which is obscure; and altho' some Places may still remain obscure, yet there is one great Advantage to be drawn from them, which is to debase Man's Pride, l. 4. 82. He also observes, in several places, That the Holy Scripture is written in such a Style, as is to be preferred before all other Authors: For, saith he, the affected Eloquence of Heathen Writers serves only to gratify their Vanity, contributes nothing to Instruction; but the Style of Scripture is plain and natural, and very proper to instruct and inform the ignorant in the greatest Truths, l. 4. 61, 79, 140. He that undertakes to explain Holy Scripture, must have a grave and free elocution, and a Mind filled with Piety and Goodness. He must take the Sence of it, and not impose his own upon it, nor offer Violence to the Words of Scripture, that he may explain them agreeably to his own Fancy, l. 3. 292. He must not take little pieces by themselves, and put that Sence upon them that first comes into his Head, but he must weigh every Word, examine the Context, the Subject of which it treats, and why it was written so, l. 3. 136. Those that maintain, That all that is in the Old Testament hath a respect to Jesus Christ are mistaken, and do an Injury to Religion, by imposing upon the Words of Scripture a far-fetched Sence, which doth not agree to it, that it may have a relation every where to Jesus Christ. We must content our selves to apply that only to him which is apparently spoken of him, and not constrain our selves to attribute that to him which doth not relate to him; for those who would find Jesus Christ in those Places where he is not spoken of, give an occasion to the Unbelievers to doubt of those where he is. Genesis is the first and principal of Moses's Books, because it is necessary before a Law be established, that the Power and Authority of the Law-giver be made known, and the Re∣wards which he will give to those that keep his Commandments, and the Punishments which he will inflict upon those that break them, be discovered: Both of which are laid down in the History of Genesis, l. 4. 176. In reading the three Books of Solomon, we must begin with the Proverbs, proceed next to Ecclesiastes, and end with the Canticles: And that for this Reason. The First of these Books teaches us Moral Vertues; the Second shews us the Vanity and Falshood of worldly things; and the Third inspires us with the Love of Spiritual Things, and represents the Happiness of that Soul, that is in possession of them. If we should read the Canticles first, we might be apt to believe that it speaks of a Carnal and Terrestrial Love, but when we are fitted for the reading of this Book by the two other, there is no fear that we shall have any such Thoughts, for the Mind being furnished with Moral Precepts, and loosened from earthly things, easily understands that the good Things and Beauties which that Book inspires us with the love of, are altogether Spiritual.

Altho' the Explications which S. Isidore gives to the greatest part of the Texts of Holy Scri∣pture, upon which he makes any Reflections, do rather respect Morality and Piety than the literal Sence of Scripture, yet that hinders not but that he sometimes discusses and resolves Critical Que∣stions. As for example, He enquires into the beginning of Daniel's seventy Weeks, and explains the History of that Prophecy, l. 3. 89. He observes, upon the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, That the Virgin was of the Tribe of Judah as well as Joseph, l. 1. 7, 478. He proves, That the Text of the Gospel of S. Matthew, ch. 1. 20. Joseph knew her not, i. e. Mary, till she had brought forth her first-born son, doth not prove that Joseph knew Mary after her Delivery: Whereupon he pro∣duces a great many Examples taken out of Scripture, by which he shews, That the Particle until doth not signify that the thing was done afterward, but on the contrary it denotes that it never was. He adds, That Jesus Christ upon the Cross recommended the Virgin to S. John, because that Apostle was a Virgin, l. 1. 18. He asserts, That the Meat that S. John the Baptist did eat in the Wilder∣ness called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were not, as is commonly believed, Grashoppers, or a sort of Creatures like Snails, but the Tops of Plants or Herbs, l. 1. 132. The Sabbath, called in Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the second Sabbath, Luke 6. 1. after the first, hath always seemed a Place hard to be understood. S. Isidore gives an Explication of it natural enough: He saith, That it is the first Day of Unlea∣vened Bread, which followed the Feast of the Passover. This was the second Sabbath, or second Festival after the first, on which the Passover was celebrated, l. 3. 110. The three Days and three Nights which Jesus Christ is said to remain in the Sepulchre, are very hard to find out: S. Isidore gives two explications to solve it: According to the first, Jesus Christ having been crucified on Fri∣day at Noon, we ought to count the first Day from that Hour to the Time when the Earth was covered with miraculous Darkness: This Darkness may very well pass for the first Night. The Darkness being over and gone, about three or four a Clock in the Afternoon, the Day returned; which may be called the second Day. The second Night was from Friday to Saturday. The third Day is Saturday. The third Night is from Saturday to Sunday. This first Explication is not at all natural, not only because it gives the Name of Night to the miraculous Darkness, but because the Question is not about the Time that was spent after Jesus Christ was fastned to the Cross to the Resurrection, but about the Time that his Body was in the Sepulchre. We must then rely upon the second: The first Day is Friday, the second Saturday and the third Sunday, in the Morning of which Jesus Christ rose from the Dead: These three are not whole Days, but ordi∣narily the Beginning and End of Days are taken for whole Days, when many are reckoned toge∣ther. As for example, If it be said to a Prisoner on Friday in the Evening, Within three Days you shall come out of Prison; it is meant, That he shall come out on Sunday, because whether it be in the Morning or Evening, it is true in some Sence to say, That he hath been three Days in Prison. As for the three Nights, it will be more difficult to find them out: We can count but two, and they are from Friday to Saturday, and from Saturday to Sunday. There is neither beginning nor

end of the third Night; but neither is it necessary, because when Jesus Christ said, That he should be three Days and three Nights in the Bowels of the Earth, as Jonas was three Days and three Nights in the Belly of the Whale, it ought not to be understood literally, it being the usual way of speaking among the Jews, not to distinguish the Night from the Day. It is sufficient to prove the Truth of the Prophecy, That Jesus Christ was as long in the Sepulchre as Jonas was in the Belly of the Whale, l. 4. 114. l. 2. 212. There is a Place which hath much perplexed all our Interpreters. 'Tis that in which S. Paul speaks of Baptism for the Dead. S. Isidore resolves this Difficulty after a very intelligible and rational manner. To be baptized for the Dead, saith he, is to be baptized into the Hopes of being changed into an incorruptible State, l. 1. 221. Some have taken great Pains to know, What S. Paul means, and what we are to understand in the Creed by the Quick and the Dead, which shall be judged at the last Day. S. Isidore tells us, That it is either the Body and the Soul, or perhaps the Good and the Sinner, or rather those who shall be then alive, and those who shall be dead before, l. 1. 221. Several Authors have con∣founded Philip, one of the seven first Deacons, who baptized the Eunuch of Queen Candace, with S. Philip the Apostle. S. Isidore is not guilty of that Mistake, but distinguishes the two Philips, l. 1. 447. The curious enquirers after the Greek Antiquities, have taken much Pains to know the Original of the Altar erected to the Honour of the unknown God, of which mention is made in the Acts: Some affirm, saith he, That the Athenians having required assistance of the Lacedaemonians, their Messenger was stopp'd near a Mountain of Parthenia, by a Ghost, who commanded him to return home, and bid the Athenians be of good Courage; for they should have no need of the Help of the Lacedaemonians, he would assist them: That the Athenians, after this, having obtained the Victory, built an Altar to that Unknown God, which had given them that Advice, and had helped them. Others say, That the City of Athens being afflicted with a Rage∣ing Pestilence, the Athenians having invoked all their other Gods, to no purpose, bethought themselves to build an Altar to the Unknown God, and immediately the Plague was stayed, l. 4. 69. There are a great number of other of S. Isidore's Letters upon several Texts of Holy Scri∣pture: But as a Proof of his Acuteness and Ability to interpret Holy Scripture, it is sufficient to observe, That he gives ten Explications of one Text of S. Paul, l. 4. 129. And that in one Letter, of a few Lines, he explains eight several Texts of Scripture, l. 4. 112. so ready and fa∣miliar was it to him. He sometimes unfolds those Texts which the Hereticks did abuse to uphold their Errors, and maintains against their false Glosses those Texts which the Orthodox alledged. He often enlarges upon such Maxims of Piety and Principles of Morality as are contained in those Texts of Holy Scripture which he quotes. He likewise very commonly explains it in a Spiritual Sence, that he may raise out of it some Moral Observations and useful Instru∣ctions.

Of his Letters of Doctrine.

Altho' S. Isidore hath not professedly treated of any Doctrine of Religion, yet in many of his Letters we find them very strongly confirmed and proved. He shews, That the Heathen Religion hath evident Marks of Falshood, l. 1. 95. l. 4. 27, 29, 30, &c. And that Christianity hath all the Signs of Truth, and opposes those who accuse it of Novelty, l. 2. 46. He affirms, That if we do but compare the Holy Scriptures with the Heathen-writers, we may soon discern on which side the true Religion is, l. 1. 21. That the former contain sublime Truths, which beget Reverence, whereas the latter are full of Fables and despicable Fooleries and Cheats, l. 2. 4, 5. Among the Proofs of the Christian Religion he forgets not to insert that of the confirmation of the Gospel by Miracles, and the destruction of Paganism, l. 1. 271. He confutes the Jews in several places, not only by demonstrating, That the Prophecies of the Messias are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but al∣so by confirming the truth of the Conception of Jesus Christ in the Womb of the Virgin, l. 1. 141. l. 4. 17. He proves, That God hath created Angels, Men and all Beings, l. 1. 343. That all Things are over-ruled by Providence, and not by the influences of the Stars, or by Fate, l. 3. 135, 154, 191. That Things do not come to pass, because God foreknows them or foretells them, but God foreknows and foretells them because they will so happen, l. 1. 56. He explains the Myste∣ries of the Trinity and Incarnation in so many Letters, that it is needless to cite them all. Among others, these are worthy of our Consideration about the Trinity, l. 1. 67, 138, 139, 327. l. 4. 99. About the Incarnation, l. 1. 323, 403. He confutes the Error of the Arrians, l. 1. 246, 353. l. 4. 31, 334. and of the Sabellians, l. 3. 247. He proves the God-head of the Holy Ghost, l. 1. 20, 60, 97, 109, 499, 500, &c. He condemns the Error of the Nestorians, and shews that the name of the Mother of God ought to be given to the Virgin Mary, l. 1. 54. He also opposes those, who confounded the two Natures, as well as the Manichees, who asserted, That the Flesh which appeared in Jesus Christ, was a mere Phantom, l. 1. 124, 323, 102, 303. He refutes the Marcion∣ites, l. 1. 11. the Manichees, l. 4. 13. the Montanists, l. 1. 242. to the 246. and the Novatians, l. 1. 100, 338. He maintains the perpetual Virginity of Mary, both before and after her Con∣ception, l. 1. 23. He is of Opinion, That Jesus Christ came out of her Womb, as well as out of the Sepulchre, without opening the Passage, l. 1. 404. He proves the Soul to be Immortal, l. 3. 295. l. 4. 125. But he confutes the Doctrine of Origen about the eternal Praeexistence of Souls, l. 4. 163. He also disproves the Opinion of those who believed, That the Soul is part of the Substance of God himself, l. 4. 124. He shews, That the Resurrection of the Body is certain, but the manner of it and time, is uncertain, l. 1. 284. l. 2. 43. He holds, That after the Resurre∣ction, the Bodies of the damned shall be Spiritual, as well as the Bodies of the blessed; that is to

say, as he explains it, active, and of the nature of the Air. He believes, That the damned shall be punished in different manners, according to the difference of their Sins, l. 4. 42. He defends the freedom of Man's Will, l. 1. 271, 303, 352, 363, &c. He allows, That Grace is necessary to perform that which is good, but he will have Man on his part to use his diligence and labour, that Grace may be operative. The Nature of Man, saith he, hath received several Graces which it is in Man's power to make good use of. Man's labour must concurr with Grace, as the Industry of Sailers is helpful to the prosperous Winds. It is of God's Providence that our help comes, but we must also joyn our endeavours with it, l. 2. 2. We are our selves, saith he in another Let∣ter, the cause of our own Damnation, and Jesus Christ is the cause of our Salvation; for it is he that hath justified us by Baptism, who hath delivered us from the Punishments we have de∣served, and hath enriched us with his Gifts; but all his Graces will be of no advantage to us, if we do not what we are able to do on our part, l. 2. 61. Man, saith he in another place, stands in need of the divine Assistance to accomplish those very things, which seem to be in his Power; but that Grace is never wanting to those, who on their part do what they are able; for if the Di∣vine Providence excites, and stirs up those, who have no desire to do good, with what reason can it deny necessary helps for doing good to those, whose Will is well enclined, and do what they are able? l. 4. 171. Nevertheless, Man must not attribute the good he doth to himself, but must re∣ferr all to the Grace of God, otherwise his best Actions will be of no use to him, l. 2. 265, 242. In sum, no Man lives upon Earth, and sins not, l. 1. 435. S. Isidore delivers himself upon the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in a way altogether conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the present Church. The Baptism of Infants, saith he, doth not only wash them from their natural Pollution, caused by the Sin of Adam, but it also conferrs Graces: It not only obliterates the Sin of those that receive it, but also makes them God's adopted Children, l. 3. 195. The Veil, that covers the Sacramental Elements, doth undoubtedly overspread the Body of Jesus Christ, l. 1. 123. And the Holy Spirit turns the Wine into the Blood of Jesus Christ, l. 1. 314. The scandalous Life of Ministers, their Sins and Impieties do not hinder the effect of the Sacra∣ments which they administer, l. 1. 120. l. 2. 37, 52. l. 3. 34, 394. He approves of the Honour which is given to the Martyrs, and the respect which is bestowed on their Relicks. He disallows not the presenting of Offerings at their Altars in honour of them; but the principal respect, which we can give them, is to imitate their Lives, l. 1. 55. l. 2. 89. He preferrs a single Life before Mar∣riage, l. 2. 133. He observes, That the Polygamy of the ancient Patriarchs was then very excu∣sable, because it was necessary that they should have a numerous Posterity; but it may not be now used as a pretence to cover our Incontinence. We will conclude with the Idea and Definition which he gives the Catholick Church: The Faithful, saith he, dispersed throughout the whole World, make up the Body of the Universal Church; every particular Church is a Member of it, l. 4. 103. This Universal Church hath often been assaulted, but it never was, nor ever shall be utterly extinct, l. 3. 5.

Letters concerning the Discipline of the Church.

In the Letters of S. Isidore there are a great many important things worthy of our Observation touch∣ing the Discipline of the Church. He condemns Symony in an infinite number of them, l. 1. 26, 29, 30, 45, 106, 111, 119, 120, 136, 145, 158, 315. l. 2. 125. l. 3. 17, &c. He taxes all those Exactions which were used upon the account of Ordinations, with this Crime. He con∣demns, in several places, those who ambitiously sought for Bishopricks. He reminds the Priests about the Administration of the Sacrament of Penance, that they have Power to bind as well as loose; That they neither may nor ought to loose those, who bring no Medicine for their Sins, and who do not endure a Penance proportionable to the greatness of their Crimes. He advertiseth them, That they ought to be Ministers of Jesus Christ, and not Fellow-Criminals; That they are Intercessors with God and not absolute Judges; That they are Mediators and not Masters, l. 3. 260. He tells the Deacons, That they are the Bishop's Eye, and that they ought to be very careful in the management of the Church's Revenue, l. 1. 19. He orders all Ecclesiastical Persons to carry themselves modestly, and avoid the familiarity, converse and sight of Women, l. 1. 89. l. 2. 284, 278. l. 3. 11, 66. He requires them to be subject to Princes, and pay them Tribute, l. 1. 48. He observes, That in the Apostle's time the Christians had no Churches, but that in his time they were become very sumptuous and fine, l. 2. 246. He blames the Bishop of Damiata for having built a stately Church, with the Money which he had scraped toge∣ther by selling Ordinations, and other Exactions of the People. He tells him, That it is to build Zion by Blood, and establish Jerusalem by Iniquity; as it is said in the Prophet Micah; That a Sacrifice made up of another Mans Substance, is an Horror and an Abomination to the Lord. He advises him to give over building that Church at the expence of the People, if he would not have that lofty Temple convince him of Injustice before God, and be a Monument, that shall cry eter∣nally against him, and which shall require the restitution of what he hath taken from the Poor, and Vengeance for oppressing of them, l. 1. 37. We find also some Ceremonies of the Church taken notice of in S. Isidore's Letters. In his time the Bishop wished Peace to the People, and the Con∣gregation answered, And with you also, l. 1. 122. The Deacons which ministred at the Altar wore a Linen Vestment, and the Bishops had a kind of Cloke made of Woollen, which covered their Neck and Shoulders, which they put off when the Gospel began to be read. The first of these Habits, according to Isidore, denotes the Humility of Jesus Christ; and the second, represented the wandring Sheep, which the good Shepherd brings home upon his Shoulders, l. 2. 246. The Cu∣stom

then was to allow Women to sing in the Church; but S. Isidore says, That they had abused that practice, by causing themselves to be admired for the sweetness and harmony of their Voice, and were no less blame-worthy, than if they sang prophane Songs, and that they ought to be for∣bidden singing in the Church for the future, l. 1. 90. Divorce was only allowed in case of Adul∣tery. The Reason which S. Isidore gives for it, is this, That Adultery is the only Sin by which conjugal Faith is violated, and which brings into a Family the Children of Strangers, l. 2. 376. He could not bear those who asserted, That Comedies might be of good use to beget a detestation of Vice, and make Men more vertuous. The aim and design of Comedians, saith he, is clear con∣trary; and their Art hath no other end, than to hurt and corrupt Manners, l. 3. 336. Those, who are pleased to see counterfeit Passions represented, ordinarily become passionate; it is then ne∣cessary to keep from going to Comedies; for it is easier to avoid the occasion, and to oppose the first approaches of Vice, than to stop the course of it, when it is once begun, l. 5. 433. He says, That a Person condemned by his Bishop ought no where to be received into Communion; but he observes, That altho' this were the regular course, yet many Bishops of his time had neglected it; and that was the reason, that the good Bishops dare not take upon them to correct their disorderly and vitious Clergy.

Letters of Pious Advice and Instruction.

There never was in the Church a more strict, or free Censor of Manners than S. Isidore of Damiata. The Church of Damiata was then governed by a Bishop, called Eusebius, who sought his own advantage more than that of Jesus Christ. Altho' S. Isidore looked upon him as his Supe∣rior, yet he was not afraid of violating the respect due to him, by telling him with all the freedom imaginable, That he did not lead a Life as became a Bishop. He made no scruple to reprove him for his Vices, to write of them to his Friends, to discover them to the publick, that he might make him ashamed of them, and to lament the unhappiness of the Church of Damiata in having such a Bishop. In his other Letters, he speaks the same things for the most part; sometimes he accuses him of selling Ordinations, sometimes he reproves his Covetousness, sometimes he taxes his Pride and Ambition, and sometimes he suspects him to be guilty of living disorderly. In a word, he gives him every where the Character of a Bishop altogether unworthy of his Ministry. He hath no more regard to the reputation of his inferior Ministers. His Arch-deacon Pansophius, and his Steward, called Maro, are taxed with the Crimes of Symony and unjust Exactions. The Monks, Zosimus and Palladius meet with no better Treatment; he describes them as Debauchees who led a lewd and disorderly Life. Another Priest, called Martinianus, who after the Death of Eusebius strove to get himself ordained into his place, is also accused of many Crimes by Isidore. He wrote also of him to S. Cyril to hinder him from ordaining him Bishop of Damiata. If we will take the pains to read the Letters which he hath written to the Persons already named, and to his Friends upon the same Subject, we shall find therein excellent Instructions for all Bishops. Parti∣cularly we may see against those that Hunt after Bishopricks, l. 1. 23, 28, 104. l. 2. 127. and many others against the Bishops, who conferr Ordinations for Money, l. 1. 26, 29. and others which we have cited in speaking of Symony. Against proud and covetous Bishops, and who make not a good use of the Revenues of the Church, l. 1. 38, 44, 57, 215. Against their lord∣ing and tyrannical Humour, l. 2. 208, 209. He describes the excellency of the Priesthood, l. 2. 200. and preferrs it before the temporal Government; because Bishops govern the Soul, whereas Prin∣ces have Power only over the Body. He speaks, in several places, of the necessary Qualifications of a Bishop, and of the difficulty that there is in discharging that Ministry well, l. 1. 104, 151. l. 3. 216, 259. l. 4. 213. 145. He admonishes those that desire to be Bishops, that they ought to purifie themselves before they undertake to purifie others, l. 2. 65. He thinks, That there are two Things absolutely necessary for a Bishop, Eloquence and Holiness of Life; that if these two go not together, 'tis impossible that a Bishop should do any good in his Place, l. 1. 44. l. 2. 235. l. 3. 259. That Gravity, and a Constancy in his Actions, ought also to be joyned with these two Vertues, l. 1. 319. l. 2. 290.

But S. Isidore did not only use such Admonitions and Reproofs towards his own Bishop and Clergy to amend them, but also he dealt in the same manner with S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, in writing to him about the Troubles that happened at the Council of Ephesus. He accuses him for acting too rashly and fiercely, and tells him, that many of those who were as∣sembled at Ephesus, boldly asserted, That he sought more to be avenged of his Enemy, than settle the Orthodox Truth. He is, say they, a true Nephew of Theophilus, he hath the same Spirit and Behaviour; and as this last thundered out his Fury against the Blessed John, his Nephew hath done the same, altho' there be a great deal of difference between the Persons accused, l. 1. 310. He wrote to him after the same fashion in another Letter. The Examples of Holy Scripture, saith he, create in me such an horror as obliges me to write to you. For whether I look upon my self as your Father (as you call me) I am afraid least if I do not admonish you, I should be puni∣shed as the High-Priest Eli was, for having not reproved his Sons. But if I consider my self ra∣ther as your Son, upon the Account of S. Mark, whom you represent, the punishment of Jonathan, who was slain, because he did not hinder his Father from consulting the Witch of Endor, is a Warning to me. Wherefore, to avoid my own and your Condemnation, I am obliged to admo∣nish you to lay aside the Disputes now on foot, and not engage the Church of Christ in a particu∣lar and domestick Quarrel, and so raise a perpetual Schism in the Church under the pretence of Religion, l. 1. 370.

It was the Grief that S. Isidore had, to see the Orthodox Bishops divided among themselves, that made him speak thus. He imagined that S. Cyril's Rashness was the Cause of it. He thought that he sought to revenge an old Quarrel: And it appears likewise, that he suspected him, not to have a thorough-sound Opinion about the Incarnation, l. 1. 323. But, afterwards, being bet∣ter informed, he approved his Doctrine, and exhorted him to continue stedfast in it, and not contradict himself, as it appears by Letter, 324. l. 1. S. Isidore wrote not only to S. Cyril, to endeavour a Pacification between the Bishops of the Council of Ephesus, but thought himself ob∣liged to write to the Emperor Theodosius. He advised him to go himself to Ephesus, to appease the Troubles; and admonishes him, Not to espouse the Animosities of either Side, nor suffer his own Officers to intermeddle with Matters of Doctrine, l. 1. 311. Thus did S. Isidore, without leaving his Retirement, engage himself in the greatest Affairs of the Church, and joyned with the Prayers, which he made to God for the Peace of his Church, the most effectual Counsels and Advice.

So that he was none of those Monks who were contented to bewail their own Sins, and pray to God for others in secret, and who remain in perpetual Silence, without concerning themselves with what happens, or having any Commerce with other Men. He found out a way to joyn the Love of Solitude with the Knowledge of what happens in the World; Piety and Silence with Charitable Advice and Admonitions; Mental Recollection with a continual Observation of other's Actions: And, to speak in one Word, all the Exercises of a Monastick Life, with the Care and Vigilance of a Pastor. There were no Persons, of whatsoever State and Condition they were, but he gave them Advice and Instructions about their Employments and Duties. We have already seen after what manner he gave them to Bishops and Ecclesiastical Persons, let us now take a view of some of them, which he gives to the Laity.

Advice to Kings. If you will obtain the Eternal and Incorruptible Kingdom, which God will give to those who govern well here below, as a Reward, you must make use of your Power with Moderation and Goodness, and liberally dispense your Riches to the Poor; for 'tis not a Prince's Power that saves him, but his Justice, Goodness and Piety: He cannot avoid being counted an Ido∣later, if he unjustly hoards up his Temporal Riches, without distributing them to the Poor, l. 1. 35. to Theodosius.

Advice to Magistrates and Governours. They ought to think with themselves, That the Time of exercising their Offices is short; That Life it self is not of long continuance; That the Rewards or Torments of another World are Eternal; That they ought to Administer Justice freely to all the World, use their Authority with gentleness, and give no Man a just Ground of Complaint, l. 1. 31, 47, 48, 133, 165, 191, 208, 290.

Advice to Courtiers. Not to misuse the Favour of their Prince, but to employ it for the Good and Safety of the People, and to imitate Daniel, l. 1. 36, 47, 48.

Advice to Soldiers. Not to take too much upon them, to do no Violence nor Injustice, &c. l. 1. 40, 78, 297, 327.

Advice to Subjects. Jesus Christ submitted himself to the Laws of the Emperours, and paid Tribute, to teach us Obedience to Kings, and not to exempt our selves from paying their Dues, upon the Pretence of Poverty, l. 1. 206, 408.

Advice to Women. If they would be commended as Judith, Susanna or S. Thecla, they must imitate the Vertues of those Illustrious Women, l. 1. 187. That Christian Women should modestly apparel themselves, and that they should not use the Adornings and Finery of the Women of the World. Upon this occasion he relates a remarkable Story of a Young Woman, who coming into the Sight of a Young Man, who was extreamly in Love with her, cured him of that fond Passion, by presenting her self before him with her Heir cropp'd, and her Head covered with Ashes, l. 2. 53, 145. He recommends Modesty also to them, but more especially to Widows, l. 1. 179.

Advice to Parents. Concerning the Education of their Children, l. 1. 316.

Advice to those that take the Holy Sacrament with a defiled Conscience, l. 1. 170.

Advice to Sinners. The most perfect State is not to sin, but it is good to repent when we have sinned, and to rise again, as soon as may be, from our Fall. Since you are fallen from your first Estate, which is above your Strength, have a care that you do not neglect the second means of gaining your Salvation, and take heed that Despair do not entirely ruin you, l. 1. 381. l. 2. 160. l. 3. 62. Yet the Hopes of Pardon ought not to encourage us in Sin, for it is much easier to pre∣serve Innocency than to restore it, forasmuch as some Scar always remains after the Cure, and it can never be recovered but with much Pain, l. 3. 157.

Advice to a Physician, who lived wickedly. You profess a Science which requires a great deal of Prudence and Wisdom, but you have a Spirit of Contradiction; you cure small Wounds for others, but do not heal your own Distempers, which are very great and dangerous: If you will be a True Physician, begin to cure your own diseased Soul, l. 1. 391, 437.

There are an infinite number of such like Instructions in the Letters of S. Isidore. They are full of Maxims of Piety and the Rules of a Spiritual Life. He, in several Places of them, recommends Charity, Humility, Vigilance, Holiness, Modesty, Sobriety, Patience, Contempt of the World, Repentance, Labour, Prayer, and other Christian Vertues, of which he teaches the Practical Part. He renders the contrary Vices detestable, and propounds fit Remedies for us to apply to them. He principally inveighs against Three Vices very common in his Time, Ambition, Covet∣ousness and Intemperance. Lastly, All his Letters are full of most solid and profitable Christian

Maxims: This is an excellent one, which he often repeats; Our Lives must correspond with our Words, and we ought to practise our selves what we teach others, for it is not enough to say, but we must do what we say.

Letters concerning the Discipline and Life of the Monks.

As S. Isidore professed a Monastick Life, so 'tis to the Monks that the greatest part of his Instructions, which we have already spoken of, are directed. He extols a Monastick State in general, l. 1. Let. 129. and gives the Description of a true Monk, l. 1. 200, 298, 308, 319. He makes that estate to consist principally in two things; In Retiredness and Obe∣dience, l. 1. 1. The Apparel of the Monks, according to him, ought to be like S. John Bap∣tist's; that is to say, Of Hair, and their Food ought to be nothing but Herbs: But if they are not able to undergo so great Austerities, they ought to live in that Way which the Bishop commands them, and follow the Rules which he shall prescribe them, l. 1. 5, 74, They ought not to live as they list, but put themselves under the Government of some Supe∣rior, l. 1. 193, 260. They ought not to concern themselves with worldly Affairs, nor main∣tain any Trade or Commerce with the World, l. 1. 25, 75, 92, 220. When any Man hath once embraced a Monastick Life, he ought to persevere with Zeal, l. 1. 91, 110. Incon∣stant and fickle Monks are blame-worthy, l. 1. 41, 173, 314, 318. They ought not to be allowed to live in Idleness, but they must be employed and labour, l. 1. 49. They may not read the Books of Profane Authors, nor affect to speak or declaim elegantly, l. 1. 62, 64. I omit to speak of the Practice of such Christian Vertues as he recommends to them, and of those Vices which he reproves in some Monks of his Time, because that were to repeat what we have already said.

What we have spoken of S. Isidore of Damiata, may suffice to inform us of his Style and Person: Nothing remains more to be spoken of, but the Editions of these Letters, which I shall do in a few Words. The three first Books were translated into Latin by the Abbot Billius, and printed after his Death in Greek and Latin, at Paris in 1585. with a Collection of the excellent Observations of that Learned Man, as well upon S. Isidore as upon other Greek Fathers. Ritterhusius added a Fourth Book to these, and caused it to be printed with [the other Three, and] his own large Notes [upon all the Four Books] by Commelinus [at Heidelberg] in 1605. The Jesuit Schottus joyned a Fifth Book to them, which was printed in Greek at Antwerp in 1623, in Latin at Rome in 1624. and in Greek and Latin [illustrated with Notes, Glosses and Arguments] at Franck fort in 1629. They are all collected into one Volume, and printed in the last Edition at Paris, in 1638.

JOANNES CASSIANUS.

JOANNES CASSIANUS, a Native of Scythia a 1.15, having devoted himself to God in his Childhood, withdrew himself into the Monastery of Bethlehem b 1.16; afterward, being * 1.17 desirous to attain the utmost perfection of a Religious Life, he departed from thence, with another Monk named Germanus, with whom he had contracted an intimate Friendship, to go into Aegypt and Thebais, to see the Solitaries and Monks of that Country, and gather some Advantage by their Example and Instructions. Having lived Seven Years c 1.18 in that Country, and conferred with the most Spiritual and most eminent Abbots of those Quarters, they re∣turned

to their Monastery, as they had obliged themselves; and having discharged this Duty to their Ancient Brethren, they went from thence into the the Desart of Scythia. It is pro∣bable, that the Contentions of the Monks of Aegypt with the Bishop of Alexandria forc'd them, as well as many others, to retreat to Constantinople: But however that be, it is certain that they were at Constantinople when S. Chrysostom was banished, and that they were sent to Rome to carry the Letters of the Clergy of that City thither; containing Complaints of the Vio∣lence which had been used against their Bishop, as we read in the Life of S. Chrysostom, written by Palladius. Germanus the Priest, saith he, and Cassian the Deacon, Persons of emi∣nent Piety, who were for S. Chrysostom, came after Palladius, and brought Letters from all the Clergy of Constantinople, relating, how that their Church had suffered intolerable Oppres∣sion and Tyranny, their Bishop having been driven out by Force, &c. S. Innocent returning an Answer to this Letter, says also, That it was brought by Germanus the Priest and Cassian. It cannot rationally be said, That this Cassian is a distinct Person from this of whom we are speaking, since he not only bears the same Name, and hath a Companion of the same Name, but also because we understand by Cassian himself, That he was the Scholar of S. Chrysostom. Gennadius also takes notice, That he was ordain'd by that Holy Bishop. Afterward he was promoted to the Order of Priesthood, it is likely in the West, and never returned again into the East. But however that be, it is out of doubt that he spent the latter part of his Life at Marseille; where he founded two Monasteries, one for Men and another for Virgins: There he composed all the Works which he left us. He dyed under the Empire of Theodosius and Valentinian, about the Year Four hundred and forty. The first of his Works is his Institutio Monachorum, i. e. Instruction of Monks, divided into Twelve Books: The first Four which * 1.19 treat of the Habit and way of Living used by the Monks of Aegypt, are look'd upon by Gen∣nadius and Photius as a distinct Treatise. The Eight last are so many Precepts against the Eight Capital Sins; nevertheless, it appears by the Preface and the sequel, that Cassian intended these two Parts for one entire Work only. This Treatise is dedicated to Castor Bishop of Apta; who desiring to model the Monasteries in his Province, like to the Aegyptian, requested Cassian, who had conversed a long time with those Monks, to lay down a Platform of their way of Living; to be, as it were, a Pattern▪ for the Western Monks. In the First he speaks of the Habits of the Aegyptian Monks, and describes them much after this Manner. Their Habit was merely to cover their Nakedness, and secure them against the Injuries of the Weather: It had nothing extraordinary either in the Colour or Fashion, lest the singularity of it should give them an occasion to be Proud. They wore a Girdle about their Loyns, and a Cowle upon their Heads. Their Linen Coats had short Sleeves, which reached no further than their Elbows, the other part of their Arm was naked. They had over their Habit a kind of Sca∣pular, and a little short Cloak, which came down no further than the Shoulders. They had also a kind of Safe-guard of Leather, which they used in bad Weather. They carried a Staff. They wore no Shooes. They had only single Breeches to save themselves from Heat and Cold, and those also they put off when they went to Celebrate, or Receive the Holy Sa∣crament.

In the 2d. Book, Cassian, to obviate the great diversity which was in the Monasteries touch∣ing the Multitude of Psalms, which were sung at Divine Service, relates the usages of the Monks of Aegypt and Thebais. First, he observes, That these Monks at their entrance into the Monastery, forsook all things, laboured with their Hands, and lived in obedience. He then speaks of the Divine Offices of the Monks of Aegypt and Thebais: They recited their Evening-Service, and their Night-Service, the 12 Psalms. On Saturday and Sunday they read two Lessons, which, during the whole Lent, were both taken out of the New Testament: On other days, one out of the Old, and another out of the New Testament. At the end of every Psalm they made a pause, and all the Monks rising up, made a Prayer with themselves; then they cast themselves flat on the Ground, and being risen again, they made another short Prayer, without singing the Gloria Patri, as is the custom in the West. The Psalms were not sung by the Monks in a Quire, but one of them sung them, and the rest, sitting in silence, harkened to him; now and then he made stops, that they might lift up their Hearts to God. Divine Service being ended, they betook themselves to their Cells modestly and silently, and went to their Labours there. They who committed any Fault, were excluded the Service, and it was not allowed any other to pray for them. They did not kneel down, nor Fast from Saturday-evening to Sunday-evening, nor from Easter to Whitsontide, following the ancient Custom of the Church.

In the 3d. Book he speaks of the Offices of the third, sixth and ninth Hours, in every of which they recited 3 Psalms. The first Office which Cassian calls the Mattins, was not used in Aegypt; but he tells us, That it was newly settled not only in the West, but also in his Monastery of Bethlehem. They that came to the Church, which he calls an Oratory, after the first Psalm was ended, did not enter at all, but stayed at the door till the rest came out, and then cast themselves flat on the Ground to beg pardon for their Sloth. In the Night-service it was allowed to go in, till the end of the second Psalm. Besides these Offices there were Vigils on Friday-night to Saturday, in which they rehearsed three Anthems and three Psalms. They never Fast in the East on Saturday, as they do at Rome. Cassian thinks, That this Fast was appointed at Rome, because S. Peter fasted to prepare himself for the encounter with Simon

Magus; but he adds, That such a Custom ought not to be established upon that Example. On Sunday they celebrated but one Mass only, to which they joyned the Offices of the Third and Sixth: They recited some Psalms before and after Dinner. At Supper, they contented themselves to make a short Prayer, because that was an extraordinary and unusual Meal among the Monks.

The 4th. Book contains the Qualifications required in that Person, who desires to be admit∣ted into a Monastery. He that offers himself for this end, must remain at the Gate, and beseech the Monks many times to receive him. He must give Proofs of his Patience, Humility and Contempt of the World, and be tryed with Denials and Affronts. They by no means will allow that he give his Estate to the Monastery into which he goes, for fear that afterward it should give him an occasion to exalt himself above the other Monks. They make him to lay aside his former Garb, and the Abbot must give him another, to shew him that he ought to be entirely stripped of all. Nor will they immediately after admit him into their Society. They put him with an old Monk into an Apartment near the Gate, where they receive Guests; and when he hath served him a long while, they put him under the government of another Senior, who hath the care of Novices; there they teach him to subdue his Passions and re∣nounce his own Will. They oblige him to reveal all his Thoughts to this Senior, and exer∣cise him with the meanest Works, to try his Obedience. They give him no other Food but boil'd Herbs, with a little Salt: But Cassian observes, that this austerity in Eating is not pra∣cticable in the West. These Holy Monks are so subject to the sound of the Bell, that they are obliged to leave whatsoever Work they are about, to go whither it calls them, altho' it be a Letter. They can possess nothing of their own. They make them do Penance for the least Faults. They read in the Hall at Dinner-time. It is forbidden them to eat any where but in the Hall. They wait upon each other at Table. Lastly, they perform a blind obedience to their Superior, who commands them to do things which seem impossible. Cassian relates some Examples which seem incredible, and it would be dangerous to imitate.

This is the Subject of the Four first Books of Cassian's Institutions, which Gennadius and Photius have looked upon as a distinct Work from the Eight last. And, indeed, these are upon another Subject. He teaches us, in them, to resist the Eight principal Vices, with which Men are tempted, (viz.) Gluttony, Uncleanness, Covetousness, Anger, Sorrow, Trouble, Vain-glory and Pride. In every Book he gives us the definition of these Vices, shews us the per∣nicious effects of them, propounds Examples to confirm it, how much they ought to be de∣tested. He prescribes Rules for the contrary Vertues, and teaches us fit Remedies to defend our selves from them. He maintains, That without Grace Man can do no good thing, nor resist any Temptation; but he believes, That this Grace is given to all that use their endea∣vours.

But Cassian doth not think it enough to propound the Life of the Aegyptian Monks as an Example to the Western, and propose Methods of resisting the most ordinary Temptations. He hath also collected the Instructions, which he had heard from the Mouths of the most Illu∣strious Abbots of those Desarts, in the Conferences he had with them. Cassian hath made 24 Books of these, which he intitles, Collations or Conferences. The Ten first are dedicated to Leontius Bishop of * 1.20 Frejus, and Helladius the President of the Abby built by Castor, who was dead. The First and Second contain the-Discourses of Moses, Abbot of the Desart of † 1.21 Schete, in which, having spoken in general of the end of a Monastick Life, and the means of arriving at the end, he treats of the Spirit of Prudence. In the Third, the Abbot Paphnu∣tius explains in what Particulars the forsaking of the World consists. Germanus the Companion of Cassian having put some Questions to him touching the abilities of the Free-will, he speaks of the necessity of Grace, even for the beginning of Faith. In the Fourth the Abbot Daniel shews of what use Temptations and the Motions of Concupiscence are. He teaches us the means to resist them; always owning, That without Grace all humane Attempts and Industry are to no purpose. In the Fifth, Serapion discovers the Eight principal Vices, and teaches us fit Remedies to be applied against them. In the Sixth, a Monk, who had a Cell between the Desarts of Scythia and Nitria, endeavouring to explain the Question which Cassian had propounded, Why God did permit that the Monks be taken and put to Death by the Arabians? treats of the Happiness of the Death of the Saints. The Abbot Serenus explains in the Seventh Confe∣rence the various Temptations of the Devils, and the Stratagems which they make use of to draw the Soul of Man into Sin. They cannot force or constrain it, but they stir it up to evil. They do not certainly know the secret Thoughts of Man, but guess at them by the Motions of the Body. Every evil Spirit is appointed to excite some passion, they know one anothers designs to do Man a mischief, yet they cannot possess him without the Divine Permis∣sion: The Vertue of the Cross drives them away. They could not possess Mens Bodies, if they had not gotten some footing in the Soul, or God did not permit them to enter to punish some Fault. It is better to be tormented in our Bodies by the Devil, than to have the Soul subject to his power by Vice. We ought to pity the Case of such as are tormented by De∣vils; Serenus thinks it not reasonable, that they should be deprived wholly of the Communi∣on, which is contrary to the ancient discipline of the Church. Lastly, he makes some Obser∣vations upon the nature and differences of Devils, but he handles this Matter more largely in the 18th. Conference, where he speaks of the fall of Devils and the Sin of the first Man. He

believes, That the Devils have subtile aery Bodies, and every Man hath a good and a bad Angel. In the Two following Conferences is related the Discourse of the Abbot Isaac upon Prayer. This Holy Man having taught us how we must prepare our selves for Prayer, di∣stinguishing it into 4 sorts as the Apostle S. Paul doth, Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions and giving of Thanks, he shews for what Persons every one of these Prayers is necessary, and the fittest Seasons when we need them. He afterward expounds the Lord's Prayer, and from thence passes to private Prayers, which proceed from the bottom of the Heart, which are often accompanied with Tears, and an assurance of being certainly heard. The Second Conference is prefaced with a relation of the Troubles raised among the Monks by the Paschal Letters of Theophilus, written against the Error of the Anthropomorphites. Cassian tells us, That the greatest part of the ancient Monks explaining these Words of Genesis in a gross sence, Let us make Man in our Image and in our Likeness, imagined, That God had a Body like ours, and so did represent him to themselves in their Prayers.

The Bishop of Alexandria had a Custom of publishing on what day Easter should be cele∣brated every Year. And this he ordinarily did on the Feast of Epiphany; upon which, ac∣cording to his Remark, they kept not only the Festival of Christ's Baptism, but also his Nati∣vity in Aegypt. Having given notice in his Church, in his Sermon, he made it known to the Churches and Monasteries of Aegypt by his Letters, which were called, Paschal Letters. Theo∣philus having taken an occasion to write in one of these Letters against the Error of these Monks, they were extreamly disturbed at it; and all the Monks of the Monastery of Schete, except Paphnutius, treated their Archbishop as an Heretick, and undertook to confute his Let∣ter. These good Monks had accustomed themselves to represent God in the figure of a Man, and they could not free themselves from this Imagination, which was so strongly engraved in their Minds, that an old Man named Serapion, (who was convinced of his Error by the Abbot Paphnutius) and a certain Deacon of Cappadocia called Photinus, going to Prayers, and not re∣presenting God to himself in a bodily Shape, as before, fell to Weeping and Crying, Oh mi∣serable Man that I am! They have taken away my God, insomuch that I know not how to adore and pray unto him more! This having passed after the first Conference which Cassian and Germanus had had with the Abbot Isaac, they thought at their return to find him full of the fancy of the Abbot Serapion, and asked him, What he would do, since so holy a Man was fallen into so gross an Error? The Abbot Isaac having answered them, That that Error was a Relick of Paganism which the Devil still preserved in the Minds of many ignorant Persons; adds, That those that are perfect and well instructed have no such thing for the object of their Prayers, the only end of which is spiritual Love, which hath nothing carnal. After∣ward he recommends a very useful practice to them, which is to say every moment and in all the actions of Life, this short Prayer of the Psalmist, O God, haste thee to help me, make haste, O Lord, to deliver me. He speaks in the Last place of the way to avoid distractions, and to re∣strain the Thoughts from wandring.

The Seven following Conferences are dedicated to Honoratus the Abbot of * 1.22 Lerins, who was after ordained Bishop of † 1.23 Marseilles in 426.

The Three first contain the Discourses of the Abbot Chaeremon. In the First he treats of the State of Perfection, and the way to attain it: Charity is the principal. In the Second he speaks of Chastity, and the means of obtaining it. The third is that famous Conference of the Protection of the Divine Assistance, wherein he treats of Grace and Free-will. These are the Principles, which Cassian lays down in it under the Name of the Abbot Chaeremon. 1. He supposes that Grace is the source not only of our good Actions, but also of our good Thoughts. He adds, That this Grace is always present with us, and sometimes goes before the begin∣ning of our good desires, but always follows them: That the Free-will is much impaired by the Sin of the first Man, but is not utterly extinguished: That there remain in us some know∣ledge of Goodness and Seeds of Vertue: That Grace is given to perfect this Knowledge, and strengthen these Beginnings: That altho' Man can naturally chuse good, yet he hath need of Grace to accomplish it: That this Grace goes sometimes before the desires and first motions of the Will, but most commonly follows them: That these two things being usually mixt toge∣ther, it is hard for us to know whether God shews us Mercy, because we have good inclinati∣ons in our Hearts, or where God's Mercy is precedent to those Motions: That it is safest to say, That sometimes Grace inclines the Will to good, as it did in the Conversion of S. Paul and S. Matthew, but there are some Occasions when it follows it, as it happened in the Con∣version of Zacchaeus, and the good Thief: That Man may of himself have a desire to be converted, and of the beginnings of Repentance and Faith: That he may Pray, seek a Cure, send for the Physician, resist Temptation; but he can't be cured, he can't be just, he can't be perfect, and he can't be a perfect Conqueror without Grace: That this Grace is a Free-gift, altho' God ne∣ver denies it to those that are laborious on their part: That we ought not to believe that no good proceeds from Man: The good we do depends partly on Grace and partly on Free-will. These are the Principles which Cassian delivers in his 13th Conference under the Name of the Abbot Chaeremon, which have given Prosper an occasion to write against him, in defence of S. Austin's Doctrine, which Cassian seemed to oppose in this Conference.

The 14th. Conference is a Discourse of the Abbot Nestorius touching Knowledge and spiri∣tual Sciences. The 15th. is another of his Discourses about the Miracles done by the Ancho∣rets. Having discoursed upon them for some time, he makes two Reflections, (viz.) one is, That Humility is to be preterred before the Power of doing Miracles: The other is, That it is more for our advantage to banish Vice from our Hearts, than Devils from the Bodies of others.

The 16th. is a Discourse of the Abbot Joseph about Friendship grounded upon Charity, Humility, Kindness and Christian Patience. In the 17th. the same Abbot desiring to perswade Germanus and Cassian not to return to their Monastery in Palaestine, altho they had promised it undertakes to demonstrate by several Examples taken out of Scripture, that it is sometimes lawful and profitable to lye. The Seven last are written to four Abbots after the Ordination, and yet before the Death of Honoratus, that is to say, between the Years 426, and 429.

The 1st. which is the 18th. speaks of the several sorts of Monks; the Abbot Piammon is made to speak it. He distinguishes the Monks into three sorts: 1. Coenobites, who live in * 1.24 common under an Abbot, imitating the Life of the Apostles. 2. Anohorets, who after they have been instructed and educated in the Monasteries, withdraw into the Desarts. The Au∣thors of this Order, were S. Paul the Hermite and S. Anthony. And 3. Sarahaites, who pre∣tended to retire from the World and joyned themselves together by two or three in a Com∣pany, to live after their own Humour, not being subject to any Man. He looks upon these last as a corruption of the Monastick State rather than a distinct Order. He adds to these a 4th. sort of Monks, made of those who not being able to endure the Monastick Life in a Convent, retreated alone into certain Cells to live more at liberty. This Discourse concludes with some Instructions about Humility and Patience, and against Envy. The Abbot John who speaks in the following Conference, having been an Anchoret, had betaken himself to a Monastery. It was therefore demanded of him which of the two Orders was to be preferred? He thought the Life of the Coenobites to be best for those, who are not absolutely perfect; and he shews, that none but those who have attained to a degree of eminent Perfection, are capable of living an Hermite's Life.

The 20th. Conference is a Disourse of the Abbot Pinuphius about true Repentance. It con∣sists in his Judgment in never committing those Sins of which we repent, or which our Con∣sciences accuse us of: Also we ought to believe, That our Sins are pardoned when we have renounced our Passions and our Desires of this World. It is good for a Man to call to mind his Sins at the beginning of Repentance, but he must afterward forget them. There are many other ways of blotting out Sin besides by Baptism and Martyrdom; Charity Sorrow Confession, Alms-giving, Prayers, &c. are means of obtaining Remission. If we are ashamed to confess our Sins to Men, it is sufficient to acknowledge them before God; which ought to be under∣stood of ordinary Sins. When our greater Sins are remitted, and we feel no more the Mo∣tions nor Desires to commit them, we must quite forget them. But we must not do so with little Sins, into which we fall every day; and therefore must repent of them daily.

The 21st. Conference is the Abbot Theonas's. He describes his own Conversion, and relates, how he left his Wife against her Will to retire himself into a Monastery. But Cassian is careful to advertise us, That he doth not propound this Example as lawful to be imitated. Lastly, the Question is put, Why the Monks observe no Fasting-days from Easter to Whitsontide? For resolution of this Question, he lays it down, That Fasting is in it self a thing indifferent, and not always convenient to be used; and maintains, That it is an Apostolick Tradition not to fast in those days of Joy. This Question gives an occasion for another, Why Lent, in some places, is kept six Weeks, in others seven, since neither way, if we take away Saturday and Sunday, it is not of forty days continuance? Theonas answers, That the 36 days of Lent contained in the 6 weeks, make the tenth part of the Year which is Holy to God. That those whose Lent is seven weeks long, have 36 Fasting-days, without counting Saturdays and Sundays, because the Fast of the Holy Saturday, which they continue without interruption to Easter-Sunday, may well pass for two: That those, who keep a six weeks Lent only, fast on Saturday. In sum, That that time is called Quadragesima, altho' we Fast but 36 days, be∣cause Moses, Elias and Jesus Christ fasted 40 days: That the Perfect are not tyed to this Law, which was ordained for those only who spend all their Lives in Pleasure and Delights, that being forced by a Law they may at least spend that time in God's Service. But as to those who give their Life entirely to God, this Law was not intended for them, they are freed from paying these Tythes. Upon this ground, he affirms, That there was no Lent observed in the Primitive Church, and that it was established for no other reason but because of the negligence of the Faithful. Lastly, Theonas concludes, That it is Love that makes the Precepts of the Go∣spel lighter and easier to be born than those of the Law. About the end, Germanus asks him, Why those, who fast much, do find themselves often troubled with the Temptations of the Flesh? The resolution of this Question is put off to the next Conference, where he treats of Nocturnal Pollutions, which happen either through immoderate Eating, or through Negligence, or lastly, by the craft of the Devil. These last are no Sin: and if the judgment of this Ab∣bot may be followed, they need not hinder us from approaching the Holy Sacrament altho' we ought to receive it not without much dread, and believing our selves unworthy: That we must be truly Holy, that we may approach it; but it is not necessary to be without Sin, be∣cause

then no Body may receive it, since none but Jesus Christ is free from all Sin. In the 23d. Conference the same Abbot explains this Text of S. Paul, The good that I would, I do not; and the evil that I would not, that I do; and some other places of like nature. He holds, That we must understand them of S. Paul and the Apostles, and not of Sinners. For the ex∣plication of them, he says, That the Good which Man cannot do, is absolute Perfection, and a total freedom from Sin. He adds, That those that aim at a State of Perfection often fall themselves, drawn away by the motions of the Flesh and Passions, and therefore acknowledge the necessity of Grace. He owns, That Concupiscence is an effect of Adam's Sin, which hath brought Mankind into Bondage. That Jesus Christ came to deliver him from it, and that he hath done it, by restoring him again his Liberty entire, and not by clogging it. That al∣tho we have the knowledge of Goodness, and desire spiritual and celestial Goods, the Flesh often pulls us down to the Earth, and fills us with earthly desires, which do not indeed hurry good Men into enormous Sins, but yet makes them fall into venial Sins, and so the most Holy and Just Men do truly call themselves Sinners, and desire of God every day the pardon of their Offences. That it is almost impossible to avoid all Sin even in our Prayers, either through distraction or carelesness; but yet these Sins ought not to discourage us from receiving the Communion. Germanus and Cassian having declared to the Holy Old Man Abraham, that they had a desire to return into their own Country, alledging that they might do much good there both by their Example and Exhortation. This Holy Abbot diverts them from this De∣sign, and tells them plainly, that it was nothing but an hankering Mind, that they had to the World. He then enlarges upon the necessity of retirement, and an entire separation from the World. He speaks also of the Mortification of the Senses, and Lusts of the Flesh, which renders Jesus Christ's Yoke pleasant and easie to be born. He confesses, That we must allow our selves sometimes Recreation. Lastly, he proves, That those who have renounced the World entirely, enjoy Riches, Pleasures and Honour, infinitely more real and substantial than those that Worldings enjoy, and that so the Promise of Jesus Christ, which gives all those, who leave any thing for him, hopes of receiving an hundred fold, is accomplished in them, even in this present World.

Cassian having finish'd this Work before the Year 429. was resolved to continue silent, and write no more; but he was over-perswaded by S. Leo, who was then Archdeacon of Rome, to write a Treatise upon the Incarnation, against the Heresy of Nestorius, which then began to spread it self; in which he confutes the first Sermon of Nestorius. This Work is divided into seven Books. In the First, having compared Heresy to an Hydra, he makes a Catalogue of the principal Heresies: And, insisting upon the Pelagian Heresy, he observes, That the Error of those who hold, That it was not a God, but a Man that was born of the Virgin Mary, was taken from the Principles of the Pelagians. Leporius was the first Author of that Erroneous Doctrine, and preached it to the French, but retracted it in Africa. In the Second and Third Book he proves, That Jesus Christ is God and Man, and the Virgin may be called the Mother of God. In the Fourth he endeavours to shew, That there is but only one Hy∣postasis or Person in Jesus Christ. In the Fifth he comes to a close Examination of the Error of Nestorius: He confutes his Theses, and shews, That the Union of the Two Natures in one Person alone, makes it lawful to attribute to the Person of Jesus Christ, whatsoever agree to both Natures. In the Last Place he proves, That the Union of the two Natures is not a Moral Union only, nor a Dwelling of the Divinity in the Human Nature as in a Temple, as Nestorius asserts; but it is a real Union of the two Natures in one Person. In the Sixth he falls upon Nestorius with the Creed of the Church of Antioch, where he was brought up, taught and baptized. Some have needlessly enquired, by what Council of Antioch that Creed was made. Cassian speaks of the Creed which was usually recited in the Church of Antioch, and not of a Creed composed by any Council of Antioch. But we must not forget here what Cassian observes, That the Creed (* 1.25 Symbolum) is so called, because it is a short Collection of all the Doctrine contained in Holy Scripture. He urges Nestorius extreamly with the Authority of the Creed of his Church, which contained the Faith which he had embraced when he was baptized, and which he had always professed.

If you were, saith he to him, an Arrian, or a Sabellian, and I could not use your own Creed against you, I would then convince you by the Authority of the Testimonies of Holy Scripture, by the Words of the Law, and by the Truth of the Creed acknowledged by all the World. I would tell you, That tho' you had neither Sense nor Judgment, you ought to yield to the Consent of all Mankind, and that it is unreasonable to preferr the Opinions of some par∣ticular Men before the Faith of the Church. That Faith, say I, which having been taught by Jesus Christ, and preach'd by the Apostles, ought to be received as the Word and Law of God. If I should deal thus with you, what would you say? what would you answer? You could certainly have no other Evasion, but to say, I was not brought up in this Faith, I was not so instructed, my Parents, my Masters taught me otherwise, I have heard another thing in my Church, I have learned another Creed, into which I was baptized: I live in that Faith of which I have made Profession from my Baptism. You would think that you had brought a very strong Argument against the Truth upon this Occasion. And I must freely own, 'Tis the best Defence that can be used in a bad Cause. It discovers at least the Original of the Error: And this Disposition were excusable if it were not accompanied

with Obstinacy. If you were of the same Opinions which you had imbibed in your Infancy, we ought to make use of Arguments and Perswasions to bring you from your Error rather than severity to punish what is passed; but, being born, as you were, in an Orthodox City, instructed in the Catholick Faith, and baptized with a true Baptism, we must not deal with you as an Arian or a Sabellian. I have no more to say but this, Follow the Instructions you have received of your Parents, depart not from the Truth of the Creed which you have learned, remain firm in the Faith which you have professed in your Bap∣tism.

'Tis the Faith of this Creed which hath gained you admittance to Baptism; 'tis by that that you have been regenerated; 'tis by this Faith that you have received the Eucharist and the Lord's Supper. Lastly, I speak it with Sorrow, 'Tis that which hath raised you to the Holy Ministery, to be a Deacon and Priest, and made you capable of the Episcopal Dig∣nity. What have you done? Into what a sad Condition have you cast your self? By losing the Faith of the Creed, you have lost all; the Sacraments of your Priesthood and Episco∣pacy are grounded upon the Truth of the Creed. One of these two things you must do; either you must confess, That he is God that is born of a Virgin, and so detest your Error; or if you will not make such a Confession, you must renounce your Priesthood, there's no middle way; if you have been Orthodox, you are now an Apostate; and if you are at present Orthodox, how can you be a Deacon, Priest or Bishop? Why were you so long in an Error? Why did you stay so long without contradicting others? Lastly, he exhorts Nestorius to reflect upon himself, to acknowledge his Error, to make Pro∣fession of the Faith into which he was baptized, and have recourse to the Sacraments, That they may regenerate him by Repentance (they are Cassian's very Words) as they have here∣tofore begat him by Baptism.

With this Discourse he mingles Arguments against the Error of Nestorius, whom he undertakes to confute in the last Book, by answering the Objections which he proposed, and by alledging the Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Church against him. He concludes with a Lamentation of the miserable Condition of Constantinople, exhorting the Faithful of that Church to continue stedfast in the Orthodox Faith, which had been so learnedly and eloquently explained to them by S. Chrysostom. He seems to be much troubled for the Misery of that Church.

Altho' I am very little known, saith he, am of no worth, and dare not rank my self with the great Bishop of Constantinople, nor assume the Title of a Master, I have the Zeal and Affection of a Scholar, having been Ordained and Presented to God by S. John of blessed Memory. And altho' I am far distant from the Body of that Church, yet I am united in Heart and Spirit, which makes me to sympathize in her Grief and Sufferings, and pour out my self in Complaints and Lamentations.

This and the foregoing Place teach us, That this Treatise of Cassian's was composed before the Deposition of Nestorius, or at least before it was known in the West. They also give us ground to conjecture, That the Reason why S. Leo imposed this Task upon him, to write against Nesto∣rius, was this, That being known at Constantinople to be S. Chrysostom's Scholar, his Work might have more Weight, and be more effectual than if any other had written on the same Subject.

The Institutions of Cassian, saith the learned Photius, are very useful, especially for those who have embraced a Monastick Life. It may likewise be said, That they have something so Powerful and Divine, that the Monasteries which observe that Rule are flourishing, and make themselves eminent for their singular Vertues; but they that do not observe it have much-a-do to uphold themselves, and are always near a Dissolution: And indeed of all the Rules for Monks there are none in my Judgment that are more Useful, Spiritual, and tend more to Perfection and true Devotion. He meddles not with Actions and Observances of little consequence. He insists upon Substantials, and the Ends of a Monastick Life, by explaining the principal Ver∣tues, which they ought to practise, and discovering the most dangerous Temptations in which they are likely to be engaged, and by giving them Rules to avoid and resist them. He never delivers his own private Thoughts and Imaginations about it, but he makes Observations and delivers Rules and Maxims taken out of Holy Scripture, and backed with an infinite Number of Holy Testimonies. This is it that makes them generally esteemed by all those who have written of a Religious and Spiritual Life. His Conferences themselves, although they be in my Opinion much inferior to his Institutions, have been commonly read by the Monks. S. Benedict, Cassiodorus, S. Joannes Climacus, Rabanus, S. Gregory, Petrus Damianus, S. Do∣minick, S. Thomas, and some other Founders of Orders, have recommended the Reading of them. Nevertheless, this very Work, so much praised, commended and esteemed by these Holy Men, hath been strongly opposed by S. Prosper, in a Book made on purpose, as con∣taining Opinions contrary to the Doctrine of S. Austin concerning Grace, and the Strength of the Free-Will. It is easy to judge, because we have said, That 'tis the Thirteenth Confe∣rence which he principally disputes against. It is true, Cassian doth not deliver these Prin∣ciples in his own Name. The Abbot Chaeremon pronounces them, but it is lost Labour to make use of that Excuse to defend Cassian; for as Prosper observes, 'Tis Cassian that makes him speak, and who relates this Discourse, and sufficiently evidences that he approves and fully follows the Opinion of that Abbot. Besides, it is certain that Cassian was one of the Clergy of Marseille, who discovered, That S. Austin in defending the Church's Cause against

the Pelagians, had pushed things too far. This was the Reason that induced Pope Gelasius to reckon the Works of Cassian among the Apocryphal Books. Some affirm, That he changed his Opinion, otherwise S. Leo would not have invited him to write against Nestorius: But this is a Conjecture for which they bring no Reason, and which doth not appear probable in the least. Cassian finished his Conferences in 429. He wrote his Books of the Incarnation in 430. Is it credible, that he could be brought from his Error in so small a Time? Have we any Re∣cantation extant? Doth S. Prosper any where mention it? Is it spoken of in any Author? But, say they, Is it likely that S. Leo would intreat a Man who was in an Error, and who had published an Heresy, to write in the Defence of the Church? This Objection would have some probability, if the Opinion of Cassian concerning Grace had been look'd upon as a Condemned Heresy: And if Cassian, and those that were of the same Judgment with him, had been declared Hereticks. But S. Prosper himself owns, That there was no such thing; but, on the other hand, that those who did not fully approve of S. Austin's Doctrine were in the Church and of the Church, were eminent Men, preferred to the Church-Dignities, endu∣ed with much Learning, and made a great shew of Vertu•• and Piety; that they were generally esteemed and acknowledged vertuous Men: That Cassian was a Man of Worth and Learning. Lastly, That these Persons not being severed from the Church, we ought to bear with their Judgment, and not despair of their Amendment. This is what S. Prosper himself speaks of Cassian, and those who were of the same Sentiments. After all this, may we count them for Hereticks, since their greatest Adversary owns that they were not so? So that nothing hinders but that S. Leo might desire Cassian to write against Nestorius, although Cassian were always of the same Opinion which he delivered and approved in his Conferences. Nothing hinders but that we may give him the Title of Blessed and Saint, which several Authors have freely bestowed on him, and which seems to be acknowledged at Marseille.

The Style of Cassian's Books is suitable to the things that he treats of, if we believe Photius; for, besides the Elegancy, it is very fit to insinuate into the Mind the Maxims which he propounds, and also to perswade Men to follow them: He orders the whole with so much Art and Prudence, that the Second Book, i. e. the Eight last Books of Institutions contain not only Moral Instructions, but also fit Motives to allure to Vertue, and to terrify and affright, so as to stir Men up to Repentance. All that have spoken of Cassian agree, That he had a very free Elocution: But there is nothing Lofty nor Great in his Style. He wrote in Latin, as it appears both by the Style and his Prefaces. There is some probability that his Works were translated into Greek, since Photius had read them, and does not say that they were written in Latin. S. Eucherius abridged them, as Gennadius observes in his Book of Ecclesi∣astical Writers, ch. 63. After him Victor, an African, undertook to take out what was con∣trary to the Doctrine of S. Austin, and add to it what he thought wanting in it. Cassiodorus is witness of this Fact, and says, That he expected this Book; which, perhaps, was the cause that Ado attributed this Correction of Cassian to him. We find the Extracts of Cassian in the Fourth Book of the Lives of the Fathers, published by Rosweid, but it is not known who was the Collector of them.

The Twelve Books of Institutions were printed at Lyons in 1516. And with the Para∣phrases of Dionysius Carthusianus, at Basil in 1559. And at Colen in 1540. His Conferences also were published at Basil in 1559. And his Seven Books of the Incarnation reprinted in 1571. Ciacconius procured them to be printed all together, the First Edition is at Rome in 1590. [1580. It was also printed at Rome in 1611. in Octavo.] The Second at Lyons in 1606. Cucquius, a Divine of Lovain put out a New Edition of them at Antwerp in 1578. Since Alardus Gazaeus, a Benedictine Monk of the Abbey of S. Vaast at Arra, caused them to be printed with long Commentaries [of his own and others.] The First Impression was made at Doway in 1616. [Two Volumes in Octavo,] the Second at Arras in 1628 [Folio,] the Third at Paris in 1642. by Conterenus.

S. NILUS.

S. NILUS, a Governor of Constantinople, and Scholar of S. Chrysostom, having withdrawn himself from the World, from living with his Wife, with his Son Theo∣dulus, betook himself to a Solitary Life, in the Desart of Sinai. He suffered there an inhu∣mane * 1.26 Persecution by the Incursions of the Barbarians; who put to Death many of those Monks, and carried his Son Theodulus captive. He flourished under the Emperors Arcadius and Theo∣dosius, and lived to the Empire of Marcian; in the beginning of which he died, about the Year 451. a 1.27.

The Works of this Holy Religious Man, known and esteemed by the Ancients, have been printed several Times, as well by themselves as in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and not long since were published in Greek and Latin, by the Care of Suarez, at Rome [1673.]

The First is a Treatise of the Monastick Life, which had been translated already by Zinus, and was printed at Venice, with some other Works of the same Author, anno 1657. and since put into the Bibliotheca Patrum. S. Nilus, in this Tract, reproves the Vices and Disorders of the Monks of his Time, which he describes in a very smart manner. He condemns those who were ambitious to be Superiors and Governours of others, not having acquired by long Exercise such Vertues as were necessary to discharge that Office well. He also gives them many very useful Precepts and Instructions, which he delivers by Allegories. He exhorts the Religious to renounce their Estates wholly, and all worldly Pleasures, and to practise the Vertues that are becoming Monks, recommending in an especial manner Retirement and Soli∣tude. This Treatise is written with much Fervor and Acuteness, and is full of very Judicious Observations. What he says in the beginning concerning the Rise, Perfection and Decay of the Monastick State, is well worth our Consideration. Having shewed, That neither the Heathens nor the Jews had any true Philosophers nor perfect Sages; That Jesus Christ is the First who manifested to Men the true way of Vertue and Wisdom, and that the Apostles and First Christians imitated their Master in all things, and following his Steps, have given us Examples of a most Wise and Regular Life and Conversation. He Adds, That the Zeal of Christians, who should follow that Example, being cooled, some Persons have taken up a Resolution to abandon the perplexing Business of the World, and the Tumults of the Cities, to retire themselves in Solitude; that these Persons have exactly imitated the Apostles, in curbing their Passions and renouncing the Riches and Pleasures of the World, in contenting themselves with meer Necessaries, in living in great Union, and having all things in Com∣mon; but that at length this Profession, so Holy in the Original, had degenerated by degrees, and was now become clear another thing. That the present Professors of it disgraced their State, and the Memory of their Predecessors by their Disorders and Irregularities.

The Second Treatise dedicated to the Monk Agathius, is entituled Peristeria, from the name of a noble Lady, whom Agathius had propounded to S. Nilus, as an eminent Example of Vertue and Piety, in an Age which he affirmed to be as Corrupt as his. This Treatise con∣tains in it several moral Considerations about Temperance, Humility, Prayer, Contempt of the World, and the Obligation of doing Alms. He describes the miserable condition of the Worldly-minded Man, when he comes to the Point of Death. He advises them that are Rich, to distribute to the Poor their Estates, rather than Bequeath or Leave them to their Heirs. He bewails the Misery of those, who being at the Point of Death, think of nothing but Worldly Business. He derides the Folly of those Persons, who give the Poor Legacies after their Death, but enjoy their Estates as long as they live, without bestowing any thing on them. He enveighs against the Luxury, Covetousness and Injustice of the Rich Men of his Time. The rest of his Discourse is about the Life of Good Men, and the Temptations, Persecutions and Misfortunes, which they must endure. And he gives us several Famous Examples of this, taken from the Old and New Testament.

The Third Treatise of S. Nilus, is a Discourse of Voluntary Poverty, dedicated to a certain Deaconess of the Church of Ancyra, called Magna. It treats at large on the Hap∣piness of those who have forsaken their worldly Possessions for the Service of God. He commends that Estate, and recites many Passages of Holy Scripture in praise of it, but many of them do not at all prove what he designs. He also recommends Obedience, Concord and Humility.

The Following Discourse is a Sermon of Morality; whose Subject is no special Matter, and in which there is nothing remarkable.

The Manual of Epictetus, which follows in the Roman Edition, is nothing like the Works of S. Nilus. He that published this Edition affirms, That this Manual was extracted out of Epictetus's Works by S. Nilus; but he brings no Proof of it: And Simplicius assures us, That it was Arian that made this Manual. We have already observed, That the Book call'd Pach••, and another Dogmatical Discourse, belong to Evagrius Ponticus.

The Treatise which begins at Page 377. is upon this Question, viz. Whether the Life of the Anchorites or Hermites, which S. Nilus also calls Hesicasts or Quietists, who dwell in Solitude, is to be preferred before the Life of th••se Religious who dwell in Cities. This is a very Curious Question, about which the Judgment of the Spiritual Men is much divided. S. Nilus takes the affirmative for the Hermites, but many others, as he confesses were of a contrary Opinion. There are Reasons of both sides: They who preferr the Religious who live in Communities in Cities before the Anchorites, say; That they have more Worth, because they meet with more Opposition, whereas they that live in Solitude, being at Queit, and not subject to Temptation, have not so much Vertue. S. Nilus answers to this Reason, which seemed very plausible; That there are as many Temptations in Solitude as in Cities, and that the Reason why some Persons argue so, is, because they mind outward Sins only, not considering that there are infinite Temptations and Spiritual Sins, which encounter us as well in Privacy as Cities. The Reason which S. Nilus brings for his Opinion is, That those who are in Cities are exposed to Danger, and can with more difficulty preserve their Vertue, being continually assaulted with irregular Passions and Motions. He supports this Opinion with Comparisons and Examples.

The * 1.28 First Treatise to Eulogius is a Discourse of an uncertain Argument, which contains useful Counsel and Advice for Monks. The † 1.29 Second is an Opposition of Vices to Vertues.

The Treatise of the Eight Vices is of the same Nature. There are two that bear that Title, both attributed to S. Nilus: The First is that which is meant here, which was translated by Zinus, and hath been published by F. Combefis and M. Bigotius; who hath joyned to it a very ancient Version, which he found at Florence. The other Treatise, which is translated into Latin by Billius, among the Works of S. John Damascene, hath been published by Cotelierius in Greek, in his Last Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church. I believe that the First is the Original of S. Nilus, and that this Last was made by some other, who hath taken his Sence and Expressions from this Saint and several others.

To these Treatises may be joyned the Discourse of Evil Thoughts, or of the Temptations of the Devil; where he prescribes the Means of conquering them. Photius makes mention of a Treatise of S. Nilus concerning Prayer, divided into One hundred fifty and three Chapters or Sentences: They are very useful Directions or Maxims to learn to pray well. They were put out in Latin by Turrian. The greatest part of the Sentences, from page 543, to 575. are rather Evagrius's than S. Nilus's, or perhaps both of them; for these ancient Monks had such particular Sentences and Thoughts, which they would often repeat, which were common to them with many others. Moreover, the greatest part of these Collections of Sentences, for the use of the Monks, were made by mean and obscure Monks, who writing down the Sentences which they had learned from their Masters, or taken from their Works, did put, in one Collection, the Sentences and Maxims of several Persons, insomuch that we cannot tell exactly to what Author the greatest part of these Sentences belong. There are also in the Bibliotheca Patrum Two hundred twenty nine Sentences in Greek and Latin attri∣buted to S. Nilus, which are of the same nature with those before-mentioned, published by Turrian, and printed at Florence in 1578. in Greek, and at Antwerp in 1590. in Latin, and in several other Places, as at Colen, Basil, Hamburg in 1614. at Naples in 1604. with the Commentaries of Paul Minerva, a Dominican, who attributes these Sentences to another Nilus, a Bishop and Martyr, but he gives us no proof of it. This Volume of S. Nilus's Treatises concludes with a Sermon of this Author's upon these Words of the Gospel, But now he that hath a Scrip let him take it, &c. To which may be added some large Fragments of Two Sermons upon the Feast of Easter, and Three other Sermons upon Pentecost, recited by Photius in the Two hundred seventy and sixth Volume of his Bibliotheca.

These are all the Works of S. Nilus contained in the Edition printed at Rome in 1683. [1673.] To which we must add the Seven Narrations of the Persecutions of the Monks of Sinai, published by F. Poussinus, and printed at Paris in 1639 [Quarto,] with a Discourse of the same Author, in the praise of one named Albinianus. There is a Commentary upon the * 1.30 Canticles, which is said to be taken out of S. Nilus, Gregory Nyssen and Maximus, but these

sort of Works are of no great Authority. S. Nilus hath written a Book Of Contrition, of which he speaks in the Eleventh Epistle of the Third Book of his Letters: And he observes, in the beginning of his Book Of Repentance, That he had spent some Labour upon the Psalms. Sixtus Senensis saith, That he made a Commentary upon Job, but I can find no Body else that makes mention of it. There are also some other Treatises about the Monastick Life, in the Libraries, bearing S. Nilus's Name, which are not yet published, as the Manual of Repen∣tance, The Monk's Dial, &c. The Seventh Council, Act. 4. cites some of his Letters, which the Iconoclasts had alledged for themselves. Some of his Sentences also are to be seen in the Scala Paradisi of S. John Climacus, and in other modern Greek Authors.

Only the Letters of S. Nilus remain to be spoken of, which are very numerous. F. Poussinus hath published 335, [355. Cave] of them out of the Florentine Library, which were printed in Greek and Latin in Quarto [at Paris] in 1657. And since that Time Allatius hath put out a far greater number from the Manuscripts of the Vatican Library. He hath divided them into Four Books, turned them into Latin, and caused them to be printed at Rome, in Folio, anno 1668. [with a Dissertation of Nilus.]

The greatest part of these Letters are Papers, which contain Moral Sentences, Precepts, Instructions, Reproofs, and Explications of the Doctrines of the Church, and of some Texts of Holy Scripture. They are written with much Ingenuity; the Sentences are Witty and Noble, and the Style is very fine. He speaks to the Persons of Quality, and Dignitaries of the Church, tho' his Superiors, with a great deal of Freedom. He instructs his Inferiors with much Love: He reproves Sinners with a Constancy that hath nothing sharp and cruel: He says nothing disagreeable to the Condition of the Person to whom he writes, or to the things he treats of. He is serious when he ought to be so: He derides handsomely when the Subject requires it: He uses pleasant or smart Terms, according as the Persons are with whom he has to do. In a Word; He never recedes from the Character which he ought to have, but all-a-long a free Air and a wonderful Readiness of Speech is discernable in him. There are a great many of his Letters which manifest his Learning and Knowledge. He explains the Mysteries of Religion very elegantly. He confutes the Hereticks neatly. He relates ancient Histories, and gives very Spiritual Explications to some Pla∣ces of Scripture. He makes many curious and solid Remarks. Lastly, it may be said, That his Letters are as a Magazine, of an infinite number of excellent and fine Thoughts upon all sorts of Subjects. He explains the Mysteries of the Trinity against the Arians and Macedonians; and of the Incarnation, against the Apollinarists, in several of his Letters. In some of them he derides the Error of the Valentinians: In others he scoffs at the Vanity of Paganism. He saith, in the Forty fourth Epistle of the First Book, That the Bread and the Wine of the Sacrament, after the Words of the Priest, are no longer common * 1.31 Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He adds, in the One hundred forty and fourth Letter, That the Christians were nourished with this Body and Blood: He commands them to receive it in a state of Holiness; and to shew with what Reverence it ought to be approached. He tells us in the Two hundred ninety and fourth Letter of the same Book, That S. Chrysostom, celebrating the Divine Mysteries, saw the Angels assisting the Bishops, Priests and Deacons at the Distribution of the adorable Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He often recommends Penance. In the Two hundred forty and third Letter of the Third Book, he admonishes a Priest not to deal too roughly with a Person who had confessed his Sin publickly; and advises him to give him Absolution, not requiring any other Penance; not that he thought that he ought always so to deal with Offenders, for, on the contrary, he acknowledges that it is good and necessary for a Sinner to fast, watch, to lie on the Ground, to cover himself with Sack-cloath and Ashes; and, Lastly, to perform rigorous Penance: But he requires that it be remitted for the sake of those who are not able to endure those Austerities, and that Absolution be given them immediately after the Confession of their Crime. He observes, upon that occasion, That a Priest ought to be active, to plant the Vine of the Lord, and slack to pluck it up. He dislikes the cruel Treatment of Sinners, lest thereby they be driven to Despair. In the One hundred and ninetieth Letter of the Second Book, he reproves a Bishop who would not receive Hereticks into the Church: And to render him inexcusable, he relates a Story, which he says happened in the Apostles Time to one Carpus a Bishop, who having used too much Rigour toward the Younger sort, who had sinned, was rebuked miraculously. He speaks of the Usefulness of the Sign of the Cross, and commands Christians to make it often, in Letter Eighty seven Book One, and in Letter Three hundred and four, Book Two. In Letter Sixty four, Book Four, inscribed to Olympiodorus, and recited in the Second Council of Nice, he blames this Lord, That he had caused the Shapes of Beasts and other strange Figures to be painted upon the Walls of the Church. He tells him, That we may only paint the Cross in the Chancel, and round the Church place Pictures of the History of the Old and New Testament, that those that cannot read may learn the History of the Bible. The Iconoclasts had falsified this Passage; and whereas it is said in that place. That we may paint Pictures, they put instead of it, We must white-over the Walls of the Church. The Last Letter contains the Relation of a Miracle done by the intercession of a Martyr called Plato, who freed the Son of a certain Monk of Mount Sinai from the Captivi∣ty he was in; an History which proves that the Intercession and Invocation of Saints was in use at

that Time. I have forgotten to observe what S. Nilus maintains in Letters Two hundred sixty and nine and Two hundred and seventy, Book One; That Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, was always a Virgin, before, after and in her Delivery. He exhorts Men to labour, yet acknowledges, That all our Labour is of no use, without the Assistance of God. These are the principal Points of Doctrine which may be gathered out of S. Nilus's Letters. There are an infinite Number of Moral Points, which it would be too long to recite parti∣cularly. It may suffice to say, that he commends Charity, Peace, Vigilance, Mortifications, Watchings, Obedience, Humility, Alms-givings, and other Christian Vertues. He gives also many useful Counsels to those who profess a Religious Life, and who may be very serviceable to Superiors; as also to those who are charged with the Government of others: Read upon this Subject, Letter Three hundred and three, Book Three; and Letter One, Book Four. In several Places he extols the State and Condition of the Monks, and observes very well, in Letter One, That Princes and great Personages are obliged to desire the Help of their Prayers to obtain the Graces they stand in need of. Among all the Excellencies that we have taken notice of in S. Nilus's Letters, there are some false Notions, forced Allegories, impertinent Comparisons, and Apocryphal Stories. This, for example, is laughed at by S. Jerom, and that with good reason. He says, in Letter Two, Book One, That Palaestine was the Place of Adam's Habitation; that he dyed in Mount Calvary; and that from thence it had that Name; for Men wondring to see a bare Skull in that Place, called the Place Calvary. S. Jerom says fitly; That that Explication is plausible, and pleases credulous People, but is by no means true. Favorabilis interpretatio, & mulcens aurem populi, non tamen vera: Yet Origen, S. Ambrose and S. Epiphanius, in Haer. 46. agree to it. But S. Jerom's Opinion, who assures us, That 'twas the Place of Execution of Malefactors, is much more probable.

The Author of the Confessions of Faith, attributed to RUFINUS.

F. SIRMONDUS published, in 1650. a long Confession of Faith, which bears the Name of Rufinus, and which Joannes Diaconus hath attributed to him, that was a Priest * 1.32 of Aquileia. But this learned Jesuit, at the same Time, assures us, That it cannot be his, because it expressly contradicts the Doctrine of Origen, which Rufinus never condemned. In the Manuscripts of the Abby of Corby, Pelagius is said to be the Author of that Writing which he published under Rufinus's Name.

F. Garner hath also put out since another Confession of Faith, much shorter than the former, made up of Twelve Anathema's, which is found at the beginning of the Collection of Pieces composed by Marius Mercator. This also condemns the Opinions of Origen, and particularly that of the Pre-existence of Souls, which the Priest of Aquileia never would condemn: So that this cannot be Rufinus of Aquileia's, no more than the former. Nevertheless it appears to be him to whom it is commonly attributed, and not another Rufinus, as F. Garner affirms. 1. Because the Author, who hath preserved it, hath put it at the end of Anastasius's Letter to Rufinus of Aquileia. 2. Because the same Author tells us, That it is this Rufinus which is spoken of in Anastasius's Letter by this Title, Incipit fides ejusdem Rufini: Here begins the Sum of Rufinus's Faith. 3. Because it is said of the Author of that Confession of Faith, That he held and defended heretofore the Doctrines which he now condemns. This agrees to Rufinus, who had defended the Opinions of Origen. 4. Because the Opinions of Origen condemned in that Confession of Faith, are the very same that Rufinus is accused to have held, and about which he defends himself in his Apology to Pope Anastasius, and in his Invectives against S. Jerom. It is true, he doth not condemn them in those Places, as it is noted in that Profession of Faith; nor will I ascertain you that it is infallibly Rufinus's of Aquileia, but I say it belongs to him to whom it is attributed; for I am apt to believe, That it is a Form of Confession of Faith which Pope Anastasius made for Rufinus of Aquileia to sign.

As to the First Confession of Faith, 'tis certainly the Work of some Pelagian, for he directly opposes Original Sin: He maintains, That Infants are born without Sin: That they are not baptized for the Remission of that Sin, since they are innocent, and that those that die without Baptism are not condemned to Eternal Torments. He owns, That the First Man had not died if he had not sinned; but he affirms that he was created Mortal, and that Death, Griefs and Pains, which are the effects of Sin, are profitable for Man; which comes very near the Opinion of Julian, whom F. Garner makes the Author of the Translation of this Writing, for it is noted at the end, That it was translated out of Greek into Latin. This proves to us, That the Author of this Confession was a Greek, or at least, that it was made in the East. We can say nothing more of the Author of this Confession.

F. Garner affirms, That it is certainly one Rufinus's, altho' it be not the Priest's of Aqui∣lcia, but another Rufinus, whom he believes to be he that was Pelagius's Master, of whom Coelestius speaks in the Council of Carthage; That he had heard of Rusinus the Holy Priest, who maintain'd at Rome with Pammachius, That the Sin of the first Man did not descend to his Posterity. It hath ever been thought that this Rufinus was the Priest of Aquileia; and indeed S. Jerom says in several Places, That Rufinus was the fore-runner of Pelagius and his Adhe∣rents. But F. Garner maintains, That it is another Rufinus of whom Coelestius speaks; and he says likewise, That it is he that S. Jerom sent to Rome in the Time when he had the Contests with Rufinus of Aquileia, of whom this last complains in his Apology to Pope Anastasius.

There is no doubt but that this Rufinus condemned the Opinions of Origen, and that he contended with the Priest of Aquileia, because he defended them: But we do not see that he maintained the Doctrine of Pelagius touching Original Sin. Let us consider the Reasons which F. Garner brings, to shew that the Master of Pelagius and Coelestius is a different Person from the famous Rufinus of Aquileia. 1. The Master of Pelagius was a Syrian, but the Priest of Aquileia was an Italian, according to the Testimony of M. Mercator. 2. This same Author speaks of the Master of Pelagius, as a Man little known, one Rufinus, saith he. 3. The Priest of Aquileia came to Rome under Syricius; The Master of Pelagius came not till the Popedom of Anastasius, according to the Testimony of the same Author. 4. The Master of Pelagius sojourned with Pammachius; the Priest of Aquileia was none of this great Man's Friends; but on the contrary it was Pammachius that put S. Jerom upon writing against Rusinus. 5. The Master of Pelagius taught at Rome, That there was no such thing as Original Sin; the Priest of Aquileia was gone when this Doctrine was preached. 6. When S. Jerom accuses the Priest of Aquileia of being the Fore-runner of Pelagius, he speaks of no other Doctrines but those of Apathy and Sinlesness. 7. Paulinus, who disputed against Coelestius, in the Council of Carthage, doth not retort upon him, That that Rufinus, whom he cited, had been condemned, which he undoubtedly would have done, if he had heard him speak o•• the Priest of Aquileia. 8. Coelestius speaks of Rufinus, as then alive; the Priest of Aquileia was then dead. 9. Lastly, Rufinus, cited by Coelestius, was in the Communion of the Church; the Priest of Aquileia was excommunicated from it. These Reasons are not inca∣pable of Reply, and it may be said that many of them are too subtle.

That which amazeth me most is that which Coelestius says, That Rufinus, who denied Original Sin, abode with Pammachius; for what likelihood is there that he should lodge with one of his greatest Adversaries, and one of the best Friends of S. Jerom? The rest are weaker; for Rufinus having dwelt in Palaestine for near Thirty Years, and coming from that Country, when he taught his Doctrine to Pelagius, Marius Mercator might say, That he was a Syrian, and that he first brought that Doctrine to Rome; and so much the rather, because this Author had a Design to demonstrate that this Doctrine came from the East. It is true that Rufinus came to Rome at the end of the Popedom of Syricius in 397. but he staid there some time in the Popedom of Anastasius. Coelestius doth not say, That he, of whom he speaks, was then alive. If Paulinus did not object his Condemnation, if he passed for a Man, who died in the Communion of the Church, it was because he was not looked upon in Africk as an Heretick, or an excommunicate Person. There is then nothing of Difficulty in any of the Objections, but concerning the abode with Pammachius, but perhaps Coelestius was mistaken, or Rufinus was after reconciled to Pammachius. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied but that the Opinion of F. Garner hath much probability in it. For this cause I have set down his Reasons, that it may be left to the Reader to judge.

POSSIDIUS.

THis Deacon of Africa, and Scholar of S. Austin, hath written the Life of his Master in a plain Style, and hath joyned to it a Catalogue of his Works. We have nothing more * 1.33 to note about this Work, besides what we have written of it in the Life and Works of S. Austin.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

URANIUS.

URANIUS the Priest, a Scholar of S. Paulinus, hath also written the Life of his Master, in a Letter, directed to Pacatus. This Letter hath been published by Surius, * 1.34 by F. Chiffletius; and Lastly, in the last Edition of S. Paulinus. The Style of it is plain, clear and elegant: This is all the Goodness it has in it.

S. COELESTINE.

ST. COELESTINE was chosen Bishop of Rome after the Death of Boniface, in the beginning of * November, in 423. This Election was made without contending and * 1.35 division; and he governed the Church of Rome peaceably, till April anno 432. The Business of Nest••rius, and the assembling the Council of Ephesus have made his Popedom famous, and * 1.36 given him occasion to write several Letters, of which we shall deferr to speak, till we come to the History of the Council of Ephes••s, where they have a more fit Place; so that we have nothing more to speak of here, save Three Letters, which have no relation to the Busi∣ness of Nestorius.

The First was written in 431. after the Death of S. Austin, and is addressed, To Venerius Bishop of Milan, Leontius Bishop of ••••esus, and some other of their neighbouring French Bishops, who tolerated and also favoured those who opposed some of the Opinions of S. Austin, concerning Predestination and Grace: S. Prosper and Hilarius, Scholars of S. Austin, and close Adherents to his Doctrine, finding themselves the weaker Side among the French, went to Rome, to complain to Pope Coelestine;

That the Priests of their Country were suffered to raise Disputes and Divisions in the French Church, and to Maintain, That S. Austin and his Scholars had promoted Opinions contrary to the Truth.

Coelestine blames the Bishops,

Who ought, saith he, to hinder these Disputes, and not allow these Persons to take upon them to teach: That the Silence which the Bishops kept, upon this occasion, might pass for a kind of Approbation: That it was enough to declare their own Opinions, not to suffer others to speak; so that upon such like occasions Silence is a strong Presum∣ption, because the Truth could not but oppose it self to Error, if Error it self did not please: Lastly, That the Bishops themselves were guilty of the Error which they favoured by their Co••nivance and remaining in Silence.

He admonishes the Bishops, in the next Place,

To reprove those who ve••••ed their new Doctrines, contrary to the Opinions of S. Austin. Let them not be permitted, saith he, to speak for the future according to their own Fancy: Let not Novelty be so bold as to oppose Antiquity: Let those unquiet Spirits not trouble the Peace of the Church: 'Tis your Business to keep your Churches quiet. Let those Priests know, That they ought to be subject to you: Let those that do not teach the Truth, know, That they ought to learn, and not pretend to teach. What Power have you in your Churches, if they are Masters to teach what they please? But it is no Wonder, adds S. Coelestine, if they are not afraid to attempt such things against the Living, since they dare assault the Memory of our Brethren after their Death. We have always had S. Austin, of blessed Memory, in our Communion, whose Life and Merit is very well known; his Fame hath not received the least Blemish, and his Knowledge is so well known, that my Predecessors have looked upon him as one of the most excellent Doctors of the Church. All Orthodox Christians have ever thought well of him; he hath been generally honoured and reverenced through the whole World. Resist therefore the Enemies of his Memory, whose Number increaseth every Day. Suffer not those Religious Persons who defend him to be afflicted and persecuted: He that is attacked by such a Novelty, suffers in the Cause of the Universal Church. Shew, That those that displease us displease you; which you will appear to us to do, if having imposed Silence upon such Offenders, you cause that there be no future Complaints upon this Account.

To this Letter of S. Coelestine is usually joyned a Collection of the Decisions of the Popes, Coelestine's Predecessors, and of the Councils of Africa, upon the principal Points touching Grace and Free-will, entituled, The Authorities or Sentences of the ancient Bishops of the Holy Apostolick See, concerning Grace and Free-will. It is also called, Rules of the Holy Apostolick See: But the most common Name which is given it, is, Articles or Aphorisms about Grace. This Writing is cited under the Name of S. Coelestine, in the beginning of the Sixth Age; for Dionys•••• Exiguus hath put it into his Collection, among the Decrees of this Pope: And Petrus Diaconus, writing to S. Fulgentius about the Year 519. cites a Passage of it, as taken out of the Decrees of this Pope. Cresconius Bishop of Africk, who wrote toward the end of the same Age, attributes it also to S. Coelestine. And ever since it hath always been cited

under the Name of this Pope, as by the Church of Lyon; by 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by Lupus of Ferrara, by Remigi••s of Lyons, by 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and many others. It is very probable, that it is this Collection of Testimonies, of which Pope Hormis••••••s speaks in his Letter to Possessor, written in 520, where he says, That tho' it is easily known, what is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching Grace and Man's Free-will, by the Writings of S. Austin, yet ••e hath more ex∣press and plain Articles in his Church-Registry, which he will send him, to whom he writes, if he hath them not, and thinks it necessary.

These Authorities seem to prove very strongly, That this Collection is the Work of Pope Coelestine. Yet this Opinion is opposed by so many Conjectures, that almost all the Criticks in these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 times have abandoned i••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. It is affirmed, That these Aphorisms are not of the same Style with the Epistle of S. C••lestine▪ 2. This Epistle, concluding with these words, Deus vos ••ncolumes custodiat. Fratres ch••rissimi. The Lord preserve you in Safety, dear Bre∣thren. Altho' S. Coelestine doth not say, That he added nothing more, yet it is not credible that these Articles were any part of it or were added by way of Postscript. 3. The Author of these Sentences doth not speak as in Pope, he doth not give his Judgment or Advice wit•• Authority: He declares, That he had no other design but to collect the Judgments of the Bi∣shops of the Holy See, or of the African Councils, which the Holy See had made hers by he•• Approbation. 4. Speaking of the Popes, he always calls them the Bishops of the Holy Apost•…•… See, without giving them the Name of his Predecessors, which no Bishop of Rome would have omitted. 5. S. Prosper bringing the Decisions of the Popes concerning Grace and Free-will against Cassian, cites ••itly S. Coelestine's ••••tter, but says nothing of these Sentences? Is it cre∣dible that he would have forgot them, if they were this Popes? This was a most decretory piece. Photius and Vi••centius Lirinensi•• make mention of this Letter of S. Coelestine, but speak nothing of the Aphorisms of Grace. Besides; Is it credible, that Vincentius Lirinensis would have cited S. Coelestine's Letter for the defence of the Semi-pelagian Party, if this Pope had condem ned them so manifestly? 6. If we consider the manner how these Aphorisms are▪ in∣serted in the Dionysian Code, we shall easily guess, that he did not attribute them to Pope Coelestine, as some think; for altho' he puts them at the end of his Letter, yet he distin∣guishes them by this Title: Here begin the Authorities of the Bishops of the Holy See▪ concerning Grace. And the same Remark is added to the end, ••ero ends, &c. These are the Conjectures which may balance the Authorities which seem to prove that this Collection is S. Coelestine's. And by these have the Criticks been obliged to search out some other Author of them, than this Pope, and having found none to whom this Work agrees better than S. Prosper, many have con∣fidently attributed it to him, altho' they have neither MSS. nor ancient Author for them. It is true, that they quote a Passage of Hincmarus, taken out of a Book he made against this Ex∣pression, Trina Deitas, The three-fold Godhead, where he says, that S. Prosper by the Order of S. Coelestine did confute and overthrow the Heresie which began to spread among the French, as well by the Authority of Scripture as by the Doctrine of S. Austin. They suppose, that it is of this Writing that Hincmarus speaks, and conclude from thence, That it was S. Prosper that wrote it by the Order of S. Coelestine. But this Proof doth not seem to me to be solid: 1. Be∣cause Hincmarus could not be a very good Author of a fact of this nature. 2. Because the same Hincmarus attributes the Aphorisms to S. Coelestine. 3. Because 'tis not certain, that the Work spoken of in that place is the Collection of Authorities, nor is it indeed certain that he speaks of any particular Work. 4. If he speaks of any particular 'tis likely to be some other, for what he says of it, That S. Prosper did overthrow the Heresie which began to spread among the French, by the Authority of Holy Scripture and the Doctrine of S. Austin, doth not agree to our Aphorisms, in which the Author contents himself to relate the Decisions of the Popes and Councils, without disputing with the Enemies of S. Austin, and where not so much as one Passage of S. Austin is alledged. But say they, it can't be said, that any other Work of S. Prosper was written by the Order of Coelestine. It appears by his Works themselves that he wrote them as a private Author, and as a Person who defended the Doctrines he thought true, without condemning any Man. It cannot therefore be said, That it was by the Order of the Pope, and as Hincmarus says, Ex delegatione Pontificis, by the Pope's Commission, that he wrote them. There is none but the Aphorisms that it agrees to; he speaks therefore of these. This is the sum of the Objection. They confirm it by a Passage of S. Prosper taken out of his Answers to the Objections of Vincentius, where he says, That he recites the very words of the Faith and Opinions, which he defended against the ••elagians by the Authority of the Holy See. Propositis sigillatim sexd••cim capitulis sub unoquoque eorum Sensus nostri & Fidei, quam contr•• Pelagianos ex Apostolicae S••dis Auctoritate defendimus, verba ponemus; Having propounded six∣teen Heads severally, we will set down under every one of them the words of our Sence and Faith, which we have defended by the Authority of the Holy See. Which referrs, say they▪ to the Aphorisms of Grace written against the Pelagians. It may be answered to all this, That they take the words of Hincmarus too strictly, and perhaps S. Prosper's too. The first never affirmed, That S. Prosper had an express Command from S. Coelestine to write some particular Work about Grace. His meaning only is, That this Pope had approved what he wrote for the defence of S. Austin's Doctrine; and this is evident from S. Coelestine's own Letter. S. Pro∣sper boasts so of defending S. Austin's Doctrine by the Authority of the Holy See, because he was certain, That it was approved by the Holy See, and that the Semi-pelagians would destroy the

Principles which he had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is not necessary to ••••∣derstand the Passage of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Answer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Objections of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, of any pre∣ceeding work. It refers 〈…〉〈…〉 Work of the Answer to Vincen∣tius, as the Passage 〈…〉〈…〉 quoque eorum Sensus 〈…〉〈…〉 de∣fendimus, 〈…〉〈…〉 agnoscant impiarum profanarum{que} opinionum nullum 〈…〉〈…〉 blas∣phemi•• 〈…〉〈…〉 debere puniri; Having 〈…〉〈…〉 down under every one of them the words of our Sence and Faith, which we have defended by the Authori•••• of the Holy See, that they who will 〈…〉〈…〉 in reading these things, may openly acknowledge, That there are 〈…〉〈…〉 and prophane Opinions in our Hearts, and may judge those Blasphemies which they se•• condemned in our Confession, worthy to be punished in the Inventors of them. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of this Discourse makes it evident, that when 〈…〉〈…〉 against the Pelagians by the Authority of the Holy See, he speaks of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things, which he says in his Answers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and not of those, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 spoken of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 another Work. He doth not send his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to what he hath written else-where, but he exh••r••s him to read the Answers which he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Objections of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to know what is the true Doctrine approved by the Holy See which S. Austin •…•…. It must be confessed then, That there is no probability that he speaks in that place of the Aphorisms attributed to S. Coelestine.

But they bring yet other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to fasten 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••pon S. Prosper. They say, That 'tis his 〈◊〉〈◊〉; That no Person, at that time, had a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 opportunity to make this Collection than S. Prosper, That 'tis his Doctrine, and lastly, That there is so great an agreement between the Opinions and Expressions of the Author of these Aphorisms and S. Prosper's, that 'tis hard not to acknowledge him the Author of them. A•••• this a Modern Critick pretends to prove, by comparing the Aphorisms wi••h 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Passages of S. Prosper's Works. F. Quesnel also finding in S. Leo's Works some Expressions like to those which are met with in these Aphorisms, scru∣p••es not to attribute them to this Father * 1.37; which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how the Judgments of Learned Men do sometimes differ about the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Style. These two Criticks, who had both of them read S. Leo, S. Prosper and the Aphorisms well, the one finds no two things more like than the Style of the Aphorisms and S. Prosper's; the other can find no resemblance between them, and thinks he perceives some Lines more like in S. Leo's Works. They both produce Words and Expressions of their Author like those of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But to speak the Truth, it is very ••ard in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and incoheren•• a Work, as these Aphorisms are, to find out the Author cer∣tainly by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Style.

As for my 〈◊〉〈◊〉, I have much a do to leave the Testimony of the Ancients, who attribute the Aphorisms, to Pope Coelestine. It is certain, that they relate to his Letter, That they were framed at the same time, and evidently given to S. Prosper; and from that time there hath been a Copy of them preserved in the Registry of Rome; That an hundred years after they were quoted under 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Name of this Pope, and have ever since continued under his Name to this our Age.

But perhaps it may be said, That it was not S. Coelestine that composed them himself, but he caused them to be framed, either by S. Prosper, who was the Pope's Secretary, as some say, or S. Leo, whom the Office of Archdeacon of the Church of Rome, seems to have engaged in that Business. But these are bare Conjectures, which not being supported with the Testimony of any Author worthy of Credit, cannot be of any great weight. And, besides, if it were true, that S. Coelestine himself did not compose these Aphorisms, but caused them to be framed by some other, yet they may lawfully be attributed to him always, since it is confessed, That they were framed by his Order; That he approved them, and sent them with his Letter; and last∣ly, That he caused them to be put into the Registry of the Church of Rome, as an Authentick Monument of his Doctrine.

The Reasons which they alledge to shew the contrary, prove well enough, that these Apho∣risms are no part of this Pope's Letter, nor are a solemn definition of the Roman Bishop; but they do not evince, that they are not Precepts of Instruction composed by this Pope, or at least by his order, upon the account of which he wrote his Letter, and perhaps sent them with it. This is most probable in this Matter.

S. Prosper and S. Hilary seeing that the Doctrine of S. Austin was openly opposed in France, and that he was accused of going too far, went to Rome to implore the Pope S. Coelestine to take it into his Protection. The Pope did two things: The First was to write to the Bishops, that he might oblige them to stop the Discourse of those that defamed the Doctrine of S. Au∣stin. The Second was, to make a Collection of the Principles approved by the Authority of the Holy See, that he might draw some Consequences from them against those who did not ap∣prove S. Austin's Doctrine, altho▪ they condemned Coelestius and Pelagius, and professed to hold the Decisions of the Holy See against their Error.

The First of these Articles imports, That all Men have lost their Innocency in the Person of Adam, and their natural ability of doing good, and that no Man can be delivered out of this profound Abyss of Perdition by the strength of his Free-will, if he be not raised by the Grace of the God of Mercy.

The Second imports, That no Man is good of himself, if God, who is only good, doth not communicate his goodness to him.

The Third is, That no Man can conquer the Temptations of the Devil and the Motions of the Flesh, if he doth not receive continual assistance from God, and if he have not the Gift of Perseverance: Which ought to be understood also of those who have been renewed by the Grace of Baptism.

The Fourth is, That no Man knows how to make good use of his Free-will, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ. These three Articles are confirmed by the Testimony of S. Inno∣cent.

The Fifth is, That all the Good righteous Men do ought to be referred to the Glory of God, because no Man can please him but by the Gifts of his Grace. Pope Zosimus and the Council of Africa have also delivered this Maxim.

The Sixth is, That God acts after such a manner in the Free-will of Man, that the Holy Thoughts, Pious Intentions, and all the good Motions of his Will proceed from him. Pope Zosimus also suggests this Principle.

The Seventh Aphorism contains the Decrees of the Council of Carthage, which hath deter∣mined the absolute necessity of Grace to do good.

The Eighth makes use of the Prayers of the Church, to shew, That all the good that we do from the first Motion of Conversion to our final Perseverance, is the effect of the Grace of Jesus Christ.

The Ninth shews, That the Exorcisms and Sufflations which the Church useth before Bap∣tism, to drive away evil Spirits, are a clear proof of the necessity of Grace to deliver us from the Tyranny of the Devil.

He concludes these Principles, That God is the Author of all the good Motions, good Acti∣ons, and all the Vertues by which we tend to him from the beginning of the Faith, insomuch that he goes before all our Deserts, and makes us will and do that which is good.

He adds, That the Divine Assistance doth not deprive us of our Free-will, but it delivers it, and dispells its former darkness; of crooked and perverse it makes it right, of distempered it renders it sound, and instead of Ignorance and Error it implants Wisdom and Prudence.

For the Goodness of God is so great, saith he, That he is willing to look upon his own Gifts as our Merits, and to give an eternal Reward for those good Works, of which he is the Author. He makes us to will and to do what pleaseth him, and he leaves not those Graces useless, which he hath wrought in us. Lastly, he declares, That in respect of the deep and perplexing Difficulties, which may arise from the Questions which have been formed and have been treated on by those who have opposed the Hereticks, he dare not really con∣temn them, but that he thought it not necessary to stay there, because it is sufficient to acknowledge the Grace of Jesus Christ, to the Efficacy and Merit of which all the good which we do ought to be attributed, it is sufficient to hold whatsoever is conformable to the definitions of the Holy See, which he believes so true, that he scruples not to assure us, That whatever is contrary to these Rules is not Catholick and true Doctrine.

It may be demanded what the Author of these Aphorisms means by these deep and per∣plexing Difficulties. Some affirm, That they are Questions which relate to the efficacy of Grace and gratuitous Predestination. But it seems evident to me that the Author of these Aphorisms lays down the first Doctrine in many of his Articles, and supposes the other, which makes me to think that he means some other Questions, which S. Austin hath disputed on in his Works against the Pelagians; as when he asks, Wherein consisteth Original Sin? After what manner is it propagated to the Posterity of Adam? What is the Original of the Soul? What is the Punishment of Children which die unbaptized? In what consisteth Concupiscence? and many other Difficulties of that Nature, which have been treated on by S. Austin. I do not affirm for all that, That the efficacy of Grace and gratuitous Predestination are Articles of Faith, and I believe we may truly enough own, That the Author of these Aphorisms did look upon them as implicitly contained (if I may use that Term) in the Decisions of the Popes and Councils of Africa. Besides, it being certain, as it is, That the Adversaries of the Doctrine of S. Austin did principally oppose those two points, this Author, whose purpose it was to confute them, could not but maintain that Doctrine. To be convinced of this, we need only read the Objections of Vincent, and the Answers of S. Prosper, which will discover that all the Objections of the Adversaries of S. Austin de•…•…lve themselves upon these two Points, and that his Scholars maintain them, as having a necessary relation to the Doctrine of the Holy See, against the Pelagians.

The Second Letter of S. Coelestine ought to be set before this, of which we have already spoken, since it was written in the Year 428. It is directed to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna and Narbonne. He tells them in the beginning of this Letter, That he could wish that he had cause to rejoyce with them for the good Order he did observe in their Churches, rather than be obliged, as he is, to tell them the Grief that he hath, because they did things

contrary to the Discipline of the Church; but being appointed by God to watch over his Church, he is obliged by his Charge to restrain all evil Practices, and order what ought to be observed; for his Pastoral Care ought to have no Bounds, but is extended to all Places, where the Name of Jesus Christ is known.

The First Practice which he reproves, is that of some Bishops, who apparelled themselves after a particular manner, in wearing a Cloak and a Girdle. The thing seems in it self to be indifferent, but S. Coeestine finds the finest Arguments in the World to condemn that Usage.

We must, saith he, make our selves remarkable for our Wisdom, Prudence and Purity, not by our Garo and Cloathing. We must teach the Faithful, and give them a good Example by our Lives, and not impose upon them by outward Shews. We ought not to seek how to please their Eyes, but to fill their Minds with Divine Precepts.

Nevertheless he doth not blame those who cloathed themselves so in the Places where such a Custom was settled, but those who through a Superstitious Affectation would change and alter the manner of Cloath∣ing which was then in use.

The Second Disorder concerns the Administration of Penance. There were among the French some severe Rules of the ancient Church Discipline, which obliged them to deny Absolution to Sinners, who requested it at the Point of Death: S. Coelestine condemns that Rigor, and maintains that they ought not to deny Absolution to Sinners at any time, when they demand it.

The Third respects the Qualifications of those who may be ordained Bishops: S. Coelestine complains, That Lay-men were made Bishops, not having passed through the inferior Orders. Which, tho it was contrary to the Rule, and against all Reason; yet he adds, That they were contented to ordain Lay-men, but it happened likewise, that they did chuse such Persons for Bishops as were guilty of open Crimes. He gives an Example of one named Daniel, who having been Head of a Monastery of Virgins in the East, was come to retire himself in France. All the Monastery, where he lived, accused him of scandalous Crimes, and sent the Informations of them to S. Coelestine, who dispatched a Letter by Fortunatus the Deacon to the Bishop of Arles, in which he summoned this Man to his Council, to answer to the Heads of Accusation brought against him. But at the same time that the Pope cited him, he was or∣dained Bishop. S. Coelestine discovers how much that Business troubled him: He blames him that had ordained him, and scruples not to say, That he had lost his Episcopal Dignity himself, by bestowing it upon a Person so unworthy. Lastly, he exhorts the Bishops, to whom he writes, To observe the Discipline of the Church exactly, which was not unknown to them, because many among them had lived sometime at Rome. But to put them in mind, he pre∣scribes them some Laws, which he thought most necessary.

The First, That every Province should suffer it self to be governed by its Metropolitan, and that no Bishop attempt any thing out of his own Province.

The Second, That when a Bishop is to be chosen, the Clergy of the same Church, whose Deserts are known, and who have already merited well, be preferred before Clergymen, who are Strangers and unknown.

The Third, That a Bishop be not imposed upon any Persons against their Consent, but that the Votes and Agreement of the Clergy, People and Magistrates be followed.

The Fourth, That no Clergyman be chosen out of another Diocess, when there is any in the same Church which may fitly be ordained.

The Fifth, That none be ordained Bishop who hath been married twice, nor hath married a Widow; which he ordains as a Rule not only for the future, but he requires, That the Or∣dinations already made, in prejudice of this Law, be looked upon as unlawful Ordinations, which may not be allowed in Force.

As to that Daniel, whom we mentioned above, he commands, That he shall be separated from the Communion of the Bishops, until he be freed from his Accusation before him. And as to the Bishop of Marseille, who was accused of being an Accessary in the Death of his Brother, he leaves the Judgment of him to the Bishops, to whom he directed that Letter.

The Third Letter of S. Coelestine, written to the Bishops of Apulia and Calabria, begins with a general Advertisement to all Bishops; which imports that it is not allowable for any Bishop to be ignorant of, nor do any thing contrary to the Laws of the Church; for, saith he, In what a Case shall we be, if Liberty be allowed to private Men to change the Form of the Holy Decrees, according to the Will and Fancy of the People?

Upon this Ground he forbids them to ordain ••uch Lay-men Bishops as the People demand. He advises the Bishops, not to follow the People's Judgment in this, but to oppose themselves courageously against what they desire, when 'tis contrary to the Rules. This Letter is dated, July 19th. in the Year 429.

This Pope writes in an earnest and close way. His Style is full of Sentences and intricate.

S. CYRIL Patriarch of Alexandria.

S. CYRIL, Nephew a 1.38 of Thcophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was ordained in his Place b 1.39, three Days after his Death, Octob. 16. anno 412. The Bishop of Alexandria had already * 1.40 gotten a great Authority and Power in the City, and exercised it with a great deal of Majesty: S. Cyril was so far from remitting any thing of this Authority, that he sought all Opportuni∣ties to confirm and enlarge it. He was no sooner made Bishop but he banished the Novatians, and deprived their Bishop Theopemptus of all he had. A little Time after, the Jews having committed some Outrages upon the Christians of Alexandria, S. Cyril having put himself at the Head of his People, went to assault the Synagogues of the Jews, took them away from them, and drove them out of the City, and suffered their Estates to be plundered by the Christians. This Action much displeased Orestes, Governour of the City, who was already much troubled to see that the Bishop of Alexandria: had an Authority, which extreamly lessen'd the Governour's. This began to put all things in Confusion, and rendred them pro∣fessed Enemies. They had each of them their Party, and as the People of Alexandria are naturally very seditious, this Division caused frequent Skirmishes in the City. One Day, as Orestes went in his Coach, he was encompassed with Five hundred Monks, who sallied out of the Monasteries, to revenge the Quarrel of their Bishop; they pursued him, wounded him with the Blow of a Stone, and had slain him, if his Guards had not come to his Assistance, and the People had not stopp'd their Fury. Orestes caused one of these Monks to be appre∣hended, named Ammonius, and examined him upon the Rack, with so great Severity, that he died in the Torments. S. Cyril honoured him as a Saint, and publickly commended his Zeal and Constancy. There was at that Time in Alexandria a famous Heathen Philosophess, named Hypatia, whose Faine was spread so far, that they came from all parts to see her, and consult her. Now because Orestes went often to see her, it was imagined, that it was she that cherished him in the Aversion which he had toward the Bishop. Some of the Seditious, headed by a certain Reader * 1.41, set upon her, as she returned home, dragged her through the Streets, and cut her in a Thousand Pieces. This Story is not only related by Socrates, but is also attested by Damascius, who, in the Life of Isidore, the Philosopher, describes the tragical Death of this Illustrious Woman, and accuseth S. Cyril to be the Author of it. But we must not believe that Historian. S. Cyril was no ways concerned in her Death. They were some Seditious Persons, who took the Opportunity of the Division between him and Orestes, to com∣mit this cruel and bloody Murther.

The Contest with Nestorius was that which made S. Cyril so very eminent: This Bishop of Constantinople having delivered in his Sermons, That we ought not to give the Virgin Mary the Name of Mother of God, gave great Scandal in the Church; some of his Homilies being brought into Aegypt, and there causing great Disturbances among the Monks. S. Cyril wrote a Letter to them; in which he maintained, That the Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God. Nestorius knowing that S. Cyril had written against him, declared openly. That he looked upon him as his Enemy, and would not have Communion with him. S. Cyril wrote a very courteous Letter to him, yet without approbation of his Doctrine. Nestorius also returned him a civil Answer, but without retracting his Opinions. They also wrote two other Letters to each other, wherein they disputed of the Question in Controversy, but without coming to an Agreement; yet these Writings which passed pro and con between them exasperated their Spirits. The Business was brought before S. Coelestine. S. Cyril, forti∣fied with his own Authority, proceeded against Nestorius, and composed Twelve Anathema's against his Doctrine; which became a fresh Subject of Contest. The Eastern Bishops disap∣proved them. Lastly, the Quarrel grew so great that a General Council at Ephesus was forced to be called, to quench the Flame. S. Cyril presided in it, and was much crossed in his Designs: But this is not the place to write that History, which shall be found at the End of this Tome. We must here betake our selves to S. Cyril's Works. They have been collected together, and printed in Greek and Latin at Paris, in 1538. in Six great Volumes in Folio, by the Care of Johannes Aubertus, Prebendary of † 1.42 Laudunum, President of the College of the same Name, and Regius Professor.

The First contains Seventeen Books, of the Adoration and the Worship of God in Spirit and * 1.43 Truth Translated by Antonius Agellius, a * 1.44 Theatin Priest of Naples; who caused them to be printed at Lyons and Rome, and his Books called Glaphyra, or a curious and elegant Commentary upon

the Five Books of Moses, which are Translated by the Jesuit Schottus [and printed by them∣selves at Antwerp 1618.]

The 17 Books of God's Worship in Spirit, are composed in form of a Dialogue. The de∣sign of this Work is to shew, That all the Law of Moses; as well-as-the Precepts, and all the Ceremonies which it prescribes, being understood aright, relate to the adoration of God in Spirit and in Truth, which the Gospel hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉. To prove this Proposition, he seeks out all the Allegories in the Hi••••o••ies of the Old Testament. In the first Book he shews, That that which happened to Ad••••, Abraham and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, teaches Men how they fall into Sin, and a••••er what manner they may raise themselves agai••. The Pleasure which allures them, is figured by the Woman, by the delights of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by earthly good Things: The Grace of our Saviour by the calling of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by the Pro••ection which God vouchsafed Lot, by the care which he takes of his People; lastly, Repentance, light from Sin, love of Vertue by the Actions of the ancient Parriarchs. In the Second and Third, he makes use of several places of the Law to shew, That the Fall of Man could not be repaired but by the coming of Jesus Christ, That he alone can deliver him from the l•…•…table Consequents of Sin, which are Death, the tyranny of the Devil, an inclination to Evil and Concupiscence. Lastly, That he alone can redeem and justifie Man. He finds Baptism and Redemption by Jesus Christ figured in many places of the Law and Prophets. In the Fourth, he uses the Exhortations, Promises and Threatnings laid down in the Law, to encline Christians whom Jesus Christ hath redeemed, to follow their Callings, renounce Vice and embrace Vertue. In the Fifth he affirms, That the Constancy and Courage of the Ancients in suffering Evils and opposing their Enemies, is a figure of the Strength and Vigour with which Christians ought to nesist their Vices and irre∣gular Passions. In the Sixth he demonstrates, That the Law commands the Worship and Love of one God only, and that it hath condemned all Superstitions and Prophaneness contrary to that Worship. In the Two following Books, he also prescribes Charity towards our Brethren and Love towards our Neighbour. In the Ninth and Tenth he finds infinite resemblances be∣tween the Tabernacle and the Church. The Priesthood of the Old Law, the Consecration of the High Priests, the Sacerdotal Vestments, the Ministry of the Levites, &c. furnish him with abundance of Matter for Allegories, which he treats of in the Three following Books. The Prophane and Unclean Persons under the Law, who were shut out of the Tabernacle and Temple, are the figure of Sinners, which ought to be expelled out of Churches, and do teach us, That none but those that are pure may present themselves before God. Clean and Unclean Beasts are the subject of some Allegoties: These are the subject of the Four∣teenth and Fifteenth Books. Lastly, The Obligations and Sacrifices of the Law are Types of the Spiritual Obligations which we ought to offer to God; and the solemn Festivals of the Jews denote to us the Celestial Rewards: This is the subject of the Two last Books. It is easy to judge, by what we have said, how mystical a Work this is, and how full of allegorical and unusual Explications. He must needs have an inexhaustible Fund of them to furnish out Seventeen Books, so long as these are, which are all-a-long carried on with con∣tinual Allegories.

His * 1.45 Glaphyra upon the Pentateuch are not less full of Mystical Notions: In them he referrs to Jesus Christ and his Church all that is said in the Pentateuch. There is not any History, Circumstance or Precept which he applies not to Jesus Christ or the New Testament. These sorts of Commentaries are of little use, for they help nothing towards the literal Explication, they teach little Morality, they prove no Doctrine, all passes into Metaphysical Considerations and abstract Comparisons, which are not proper either to convince Unbelievers, or edify the Faithful.

The long Commentary upon Isaiah, which is contained in the Second Tome, is much more rational: S. Cyril therein applies himself to the literal Sence of this Prophet, and doth not digress so much from the Natural Sence, to find out Jesus Christ, because the Prophecy of Isaiah agrees more naturally to him. This Commentary is divided into Six Parts. The same Judgment may be given upon the Commentary upon the Twelve Prophets; in which also he sets himself to the literal Explication, so that there is a great deal of difference between the Commentaries of this Father upon the Prophets, and his Writings upon the Pentateuch. M. Simon doth not think so, but having spoken of the Commentaries of this Father upon the Pentateuch, as a Work purely allegorical, he adds, That he passes over in silence his Com∣mentaries upon the Prophet Isaiah, because this Father is very uniform in his Method. But whosoever will give himself the trouble to read any Place of his Commentaries upon Genesis and Exodus, and compare them with some other Place of his Commentary upon Isaiah or the Minor Prophets, he will find in them a very considerable difference.

The Commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, which make up the Fourth Tome, do explain also the Letter and Connexion of the Gospel; but he now and then intermixes with it some Theological Questions. And because those which concern the Trinity, come in naturally in the Gospel of S. John, he ordinarily treats of them in proving the Divinity, Consubstantiality and Equality of the Son of God. He also speaks of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and observes that it proceeds from the Son, and takes his Nature of the Son. Sometimes he proves, that the Law was Figurative, and that Salvation and Grace are passed from the Jews to the Gentiles. There is also a Chapter in it about Liberty and Man.

These are the principal Points he treats of. This Commentary is very long, and divided into Twelve Books. We have only some Fragments of the Seventh and Eighth. The Fifth and Sixth are not extant in this, no more than in the preceeding Editions. But Jodo••us Clictovaeus, a Doctor of Paris, who hath translated this Commentary of S. Cyril, hath composed Four Books, to supply those that are wanting; which hath given occasion to some Authors to quote them as S. Cyril's: It is true, that they are almost all taken out of the ancient Fathers, but 'twas * 1.46 Clictovaeus that collected them, not S. Cyril.

The Fifth Tome of S. Cyril's Works, hath Two Parts, which make Two Volumes. The First contains his Thesaurus, and Dialogues upon the Trinity and Incarnation, and the Second is made up of his Homilies and Letters.

His Thesaurus is a Work upon the Trinity, in which he lays down Thirty five Propositions about the Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit; which he proves exactly after the manner of the Schools, by Texts of Scripture, upheld and supported by Arguments and Syllogisms in Form, which he uses to subdue the Arians and Eunomians, and to retort upon them those Testimonies of Holy Scripture, which they commonly alledged. He propounds their Objections in the same manner, and answers them with the like Subtilties.

Georgius Trapezuntius hath published a very imperfect Version, or rather a Latin Abridg∣ment of this Book; in which he hath taken out, changed and added several things, and quite inverted the Order of S. Cyril. But since Vulcanius Brugen••••s hath made a faithful Translation, which was published at Basil in 1576. There can be no doubt that this Work is S. Cyril's, since Photius had read it, and described it to be such as we have in the 136th. Volume of his Bibliotheca.

S. Thomas often quotes a Passage in favour of the Court of Rome, as being taken out of the Second Book of S. Cyril's Thesaurus, which is not to be found entire in that Work: But we need only to read it, and we shall be satisfied that there was never any such, nor ever could be found there. This is the famous Passage, as he cites it: We must remain as Members in our Head, in the Apostolick Throne of the Roman Bishops, from whom we ought to request whatsoever is necessary to be believed and held, having a particular Respect for him, and enquiring of him about all Things, because it belongs to him to reprove, correct, order, dispose things, loose in his stead, who hath founded him, and given him a fulness of Power, him alone ••••d not any other, to whom all the Faithful are obliged by Divine Right to be subject, and whom the Princes of the World should obey. Who of all the Greek or Latin Fathers ever spake thus? Who of them ever flattered the Bishop of Rome at this rate? But how is it possible for it to enter into the Thesaurus of S. Cyril, which is nothing else but a contexture of Texts and Arguments upon the Trinity? What coherence hath our pretended Passage with that Subject? What doth this Phrase mean, That we may remain as Members in our Head, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Apostolick Throne of the Roman Bishops? Did ever any Author speak any thing like it? To whom doth he speak these Words? And of whom are they spoken, That we may remain Members, &c. Are they the Bishops of Aegypt that speak them? Could it find a Place in a Theological Treatise of one Father only?

S. Thomas is the First that cited this Passage; and we know with how much carelesness, and with how little Judgment he quotes the Works of the Fathers. It likewise appears, that he had never seen S. Cyril's Thesaurus, because he quotes the Second Book of that Work, which was never divided into Books. Urban IV. hath alledged it after S. Thomas, but upon the Credit of that Author. In the Council of Florence S. Cyril's Thesaurus is quoted in general, but when it was seasonable to produce this Passage, there is nothing said of it. All this makes it evident, That neither this Passage nor any other like it, cited by the same S. Thomas, in his Catena upon S. Matthew, as being in S. Cyril's Thesaurus, which is not found there no more than the former, are not, nor can be this Father's, nor are taken out of his Thesaurus. I wonder that F. Labbe should so openly profess himself a Defender of these two supposititious Passages.

The Style of S. Cyril's Dialogues is not so rough and scholastick as that of the foregoing Book. There are Seven of them upon the Trinity, and Two upon the Incarnation. He proves in these last, That Jesus Christ is one only Person, made up of the Humane and Divine Nature. At the end of this Volume we find some clear Resolutions upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, where he Answers the Objections which were propounded to him. Photius speaks of this little Book, in the One hundred sixty and ninth Volume of his Biblio∣theca.

To this Treatise may be joyned, a Discourse of the Orthodox Faith to Theodosius; the Treatise addressed to the Empresses, the Sermon which is annexed to it, which are in the Second Part of this Tome: In them he proves, That Jesus Christ is God, and that all the Properties of the Divine Nature may be attributed to him. To prove this he makes use of a great number of Texts of Holy Scripture, and the Testimonies of some Fathers. These Treatises are also in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.

Paschal Homilies are not peculiar to S. Cyril. It was the Custom of the Bishops of Alex∣andria, whom the Council of Nice had particularly charged with the care of publishing Easter-day; I say, It was the Custom to declare it in Alexandria by a solemn Discourse.

Theophil••s, S. Cyril's Predecessor had made that Usage very famous, and S. Cyril kept it up with a great deal of Splendor, so that so long as he was Bishop, there passed no•• a Year but there was a Sermon••, at the end of which he gave notice of the beginning of Lent, and of Easter-day. Of the Thirty which he made we have Twenty nine. The ordinary subject of these Sermons was the Use and Advantage of Fasting, and the way how Christians ought to ••it themselves for the celebration of Festivals. In them also he sometimes exhorts the Faithful to joyn Alms-giving and Charity, with Fasting. He speaks in some of them of double∣mindedness. In •…•…y of them he treats of the Trinity and Incarnation, against the Arians and ••••torians. He sometimes speaks also against the Jews and Idolaters. These Sermons are flat and tedious; they are nothing else, almost, but a contexture of Texts of Scripture, which he mingles with mystical Explications.

There are also here some other Discourses of this Father, which are for the most part against the ••••ror of Nestorius. The First and Second are entirely upon that Subject. They were preached at Ephesus. The Third is a small Discourse, which he made after the Sermon of Paul, Bishop of Emesa, about the Time that the Oriental and Aegyptian Bishops were recon∣ciled to each other. The Fourth and Fifth are two Sermons, preached at Ephesus against Nestorius. The Sixth is against John Bishop of Antioch. The Seventh is a Discourse, which he delivered also at Ephesus, when he was imprisoned. The Eighth is upon the Transfigu∣ration. The Ninth upon the Lord's Supper: In this he speaks very strongly for the Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, as well as in his Commen∣tary upon S. John's Gospel. The Tenth is a Discourse in praise of the Virgin Mary, preached at Ephesus. The Eleventh upon the Feast of the Purification. The Twelfth upon the Feast of Tabernacles. The Last is upon the Day of Judgment. These Sermons are written in a close Style, and more sententious than the former. They are full of Points, Allusions and Jinglings of Words. There is also a short one upon the Incarnation, which is extant in Latin only.

Almost all his Letters concern the History of the Council of Ephesus, and the Disputes which S. Cyril had with John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops; for which Reason it is that we intend to speak of them, when we come to treat of the Council of Ephesus. where they are inserted. Nevertheless, there are Five or Six at the end, which relate to other Matters. The First is the Letter of Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople to S. Cyril; wherein he exhorts him to put the Name of S. Chrysostom into the Diptychs, among the Bishops that died in the Communion of the Church, as he had done by the Example of Alexander Bishop of Antioch. S. Cyril returns him answer, That he disap∣proved his Action, being contrary to the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and that John, Bishop of Constantinople, having been degraded in his life-time, by the Judgment of the Church, he could not put him among the Bishops in the Communion of the Church, after his Death: That what he had done had given great Offence in all the Provinces of Aegypt. He takes notice, that they were counted but Six, viz. Aegypt, Augustamnicum, Arcadia, Thebais, Libya and Pentapolis. The Third of the Letters, of which we are speaking, is written to Domnus Bishop of Antioch. Athanasius, Bishop of a City belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, although far distant from that City, being offended by some of his Clergy, who would expel the Ste∣wards out of his Church, against his Consent, made his Complaint to a Synod held in Constan∣tinople, where S. Cyril was: But since Athanasius was not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of that Synod, they would not judge of his Cause. But S. Cyril wrote in his behalf to Domnus, relating to him the Trouble which this Bishop unjustly suffered, and desiring him to constitute Judges, who might summon the Stewards accused, and their Accusers, and con∣demn the Guilty. He tells him, That the Metropolitan was mistrusted by the Bishop, and that the City, of which he was Bishop, was far from Antioch. These Circumstances are remarkable, for otherwise the Judgment of it did in the first Place appertain to the Metropo∣litan, or if he were excepted against, to the Patriarch. In this Example we see, 1. The Au∣thority of Patriarchs over their Patriarchate. 2. The Antiquity of making such Persons Judges as were near to the Accused and Accusers. 3. How exactly the Bishops of one Patri∣archate kept themselves within the Bounds of their own Jurisdiction, without meddling in other's. 4. That this Caution did not hinder them from helping Persons afflicted and perse∣cuted, which fled to them, but yet only by Intercessions for them, without attempting any thing contrary to the Laws of the Church.

The next Letter, written to the same Domnus, furnishes us with another Proof of this Episcopal Charity. Another Bishop, belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, named Petrus, was deprived of the Government of his Church, and likewise plundered of all his Goods. This Bishop, who was very aged, complained heavily of this Condemnation, and maintained that he was unjustly thrust out of all: Domnus writing to S. Cyril and Proclus, gave this Prelate the Name of a Religious and Holy Bishop. S. Cyril takes occasion from hence to write in his Favour, and shew Domnus, That if this Bishop deserved to be deprived of his Church, he also deserved to lose the Name of Bishop. He then admonishes Domnus to pacify the Complaints of this Bishop, and to suffer him to appear before him and his Suffragan-Bishops, to be judged there according to the Custom. He desires him also to give him the Liberty to reject those Bishops, which may be suspected by him; for, saith he, although we do not believe that any

Bishop is an Enemy to his Brethren; nevertheless, to remove all Pretences of Complaint against the Sentence, which shall be given, it is convenient, that those whom he suspects should withdraw themselves. As to the Money that had been taken from him, S. Cyril thinks, it ought to be restored to him, for Two Reasons: 1. Because he ought not to be deprived after such a manner. 2. Because it is an Abuse to demand an Account, as they do, of the Reve∣nues of the Church, of the Bishops: It is sufficient that they cannot dispose either of the precious Vessels or Lands. The management of the Revenues ought wholly to be trusted to them. Lastly, whereas it might be said, That this Bishop had given a Writing, in which he had renounced his Claim to his Church, and so was not to be received again; S. Cyril answers, That he did not give it voluntarily, but it was extorted from him by Force and Threatnings; and since it was so, such Acts of Abjuration ought not to be regarded, nor ought Bishops to be suffered to give them; for if they are worthy of their Ministry, they ought not to renounce it; if they are not worthy, they ought not to be deprived by a Renunciation, but by a Canonical Sentence.

The last Letter contains a Prescription, directed to the Bishops of Libya and Pentapolis, to prevent a Disorder, which the Monks of Thebais complained of. Some Persons, newly mar∣ried, had a desire to be ordained Clerks or Priests, and the Bishops very easily admitted them, without obliging them to renounce their Marriage: Others who had been expelled out of the Monasteries for their Debaucheries, found means also to get themselves ordained, and then got into Monasteries again, where they would celebrate the Holy Sacraments, and perform the Sacred Functions of the Ministry; which occasioned so great Scandal, that those that knew them would neither be present, nor communicate at their Ministration. S. Cyril, to put a Stop to this Scandal, ordered, That every Bishop, before he ordaineth a Clergyman, shall inform himself of his Life, If he be married or not, How long since, and How long he hath departed from his Wife; Whether he hath not been driven out by his Bishop, or expelled some Monastery; And that he shall not ordain him, unless he find his Conversation unblameable; for, saith he, This is the only way of discharging our Duty, and preventing that the Holy and Venerable Mysteries be not profaned by the Impurities of the Ministers. He adds a Rule concerning those, who being separated from the Church, or Catechumens, fall into a mortal Disease; and orders, that according to the Custom they should be allowed the Communion and Baptism. This Tome concludes with a Letter of S. Cyril's to the Bishops of Africa, when he sent them an Authentick Copy of the Canons of the Council of Nice.

The Sixth Tome begins with the Five Books against Nestorius; in which he confutes what Nestorius had written against the Name of the Mother of God, given to the Virgin, and against other such like Expressions. He recites Nestorius's Words, and in answering to them labours to convince him of Error and Imposture. Of Error, because he divides Jesus Christ into Two, and denies the Union of the Two Natures in One Person only: Of Imposture, in attributing to the Orthodox such Opinions as they never thought on, accusing them of Teaching, That the Two Natures in Jesus Christ are mingled and confounded, and that the Divinity is made subject to Humane Infirmities. He maintains, That the two Natures remain in Jesus Christ without Mixture or Confusion, but are united in so strict an Union, that what only agrees to God may be predicated of Man, and what agrees only to Man, of God; altho' the Properties of the Humanity may not be attributed to the Godhead, nor the Attributes of the Godhead to the Manhood.

Next to this Treatise follow the Writings made by S. Cyril for the Defence of his Twelve Anathema's. The First contains an Explication of the Twelve Propositions; in which he rejects the bad Sence that might be put on them. The Second is an Apology for the Anathe∣ma against the Objections of the Oriental Bishops. The Third is an Answer to what Theodoret had written against these Anathema's. Lastly, The Apology of S. Cyril to Theodosius is put here; but we shall speak more largely elswhere of these Treatises.

The Books against the Emperor Julian ought to have gone before these we have spoken of, because 'tis one of S. Cyril's principal Works: It is dedicated to Theodosius the Emperor, and divided into Ten Books.

In the First he proves, by the Testimony of the ancient Historians and most learned Philo∣sophers, That the Jews Religion is much more ancient and rational than the Greeks: That the History of Moses is true, and that the Greeks have taken all their best Expressions out of the Jews Books. In the next Place he undertakes to confute the Books of Julian closely, and answer all his Objections. He recites them at length, and then answers them. It seems he confuted only the First Book, in which that Apostate assaults the Christian Religion in general. He begins with a Comparison of the Jewish and Heathen Religion, and of the Books of Moses and Plato, and extols his Philosophy above the Laws of that Prophet. Next, he opposes the Christian Religion, and propounds some trivial Objections against the History of the Gospel. Lastly, he makes use of the Jewish Religion and Books to overthrow the Chri∣stian Religion. The Objections which he brings are weak and idle, but he makes them look well by the fine and pleasant Management of them. S. Cyril discovers the Weakness of them, and disperses them entirely. He also often opposes the Heathen Religion, and establishes the Christian. This Work is written with a great deal of Elegancy, but it is nothing so finely written as Julian's altho it be very learned and solid.

The Treatise 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is written against those silly and dull-witted Monks; who ass•…•…, That these Words of Genesis, Let us make man in our image, and in our likeness, ought to be unders•••••••• of Man's Body, because they did not conceive that there was any Spiritual Essence, but imagined that God himself was Corporeal. S. Cyril wrote to Coelosyrius, in the Letter which is set before the Body of this Work, to stop the Course of this impertinent Docri••e, and to ••••••bid the Monks to argue about a Matter so far above the reach of their Understandings. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Monks also, who thought that the Eucharist had no vertue to sanctify, when it w•••• kept from One Day to Another. He condemns also the Monks, who did not follow their Labours, ••pretending that they gave themselves wholly to Prayers, and so used a Pretence of Piety to defend their Sloth and Idleness: He asks them, Whether they are more perfect than the 〈◊〉〈◊〉? and whether they would enjoy a more Happy Condition than they? He tells them, That the Church doth not receive them, who live as they do; that it is good for Solitari•••• to pray continually, but that ought not to hinder their Labours, that they be not chargeable to others. Lastly, He admonishes Coelosy∣rius not to suffer the Meletians to receive the Sacrament among the Orthodox, if they have not abandoned their own Sect, to unite themselves with the Church, and have not given evident Signs of their Conversion.

S. Cyril commands Coelosyrius to publish these Rules in the Monasteries of Mount Calamon, where some Monks were infected with these Errors. At the same time he sent him a Trea∣tise, in which he answers the Objections which these Monks propounded, and solves the Difficulties which they had cunningly framed: Nevertheless he observes, That it is hard to resolve these kinds of abstruse and subtle Questions, and that all that can be done is only to bring such Conjectures as may in some Measure satisfy.

The First is concerning the Breath of Life, which God breathed into Adam, after he had formed him: Is it his Soul, or a Breath different from the Soul? Is it a Part of the Divine Essence, or some created Being? S. Cyril maintains, That 'tis not the Soul of Man, nor any Creature, but it is the Holy Spirit it self which is given Man for his Sanctification. This Opinion is not very probable.

It is demanded in the Second Question, How Man was created in the Image of God? S. Cyril answers, By the Holy Spirit, for by Sin he hath lost that Similitude, and hath reco∣vered it again by Jesus Christ.

The Third is, Whether the Angels were made in the Image of God? S. Cyril af∣firms it.

In the Fourth, It is enquired, Whether there be any difference between the Image and Like∣ness of God, and he saith that there is none.

The Fifth is upon an abstracted Conceit, viz. Whether Man is the Image of God, or the Image of the Image of God the Father, that is to say, of the Word. He answers, That he is the Image of the three Persons of the God-head.

In the Sixth it is demanded, Whether the Souls of the Blessed receive any Perfection? S. Cyril Answers, That it will not have a more perfect Nature, but it will act more perfectly, because it will be delivered from Concupiscence, Ignorance and Vice, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

The Seventh Question is, Why all Men are subject to Death and Sin, upon the account of Adam's Transgression, and why all those who are purified and sanctified by Jesus Christ, do not communicate the Fruits of their Sanctification to their Posterity? S. Cyril answers, That we are not punished as having sinned with the first Man, but because he being become Mortal by his Sin, hath transferred that Curse to all his Posterity: That Jesus Christ hath redeemed and delivered us all from Death, but that no Man, though he be sanctified, can communicate that Sanctification to his Posterity, because it comes from Jesus Christ, who only sanctifies us. 'Tis by Jesus Christ that every Man receives Remission of his Sins, and 'tis by him that all Men in general are delivered from Death.

In the Eighth Question it is enquired, Whether, when Ezekiel saw the Bones of the dead to be joyned together, and resume the Form of a Man; Whether it was, I say, a real Re∣surrection, or only a Figure of the general Resurrection? S. Cyril is for the latter.

The Ninth is, Whether Jesus Christ added any thing to the Flesh of Man, when he was united to it? S. Cyril answers, That Jesus Christ, by his Incarnation, hath granted several Graces to the Humane Nature; That he hath restored to Man the Image and Likeness of God, which was defaced by Sin; That he hath revived the Divine Characters of Justice and Holiness, and perfected them; That Adam had Ability and Freedom to do good, but he was defective in his Actions and the Effect, whereas those who live in Jesus Christ are Just and Holy in the Effect, and in their Actions.

In the Tenth he teacheth, That by the assistance of God we may repulse and weaken the Motions of Concupiscence, but cannot root them out in this Life.

In the Eleventh he maintains, That the Holy Sacrament must not be celebrated but in the Churches of the Orthodox, and they that do otherwise break the Law.

The Twelfth Question is very Metaphysical; It is demanded, Whether God can make that which hath happened, not to be? Whether he can make a common Harlot to have been always a Virgin? S. Cyril says, That we must not set Bounds to the Power of God, but

neither may we attribute to him a Power of doing things Absurd and Contradictory, and that it is good not to move such sort of Questions: That, in Sum, God cannot make that which hath happened, not to have happened; or a common Prostitute to have always been a Virgin, because he cannot make a Lye the Truth; yet it is not a sign of his Impotency, but an effect of his Perfection.

The Thirteenth is against those who dare affirm, That Jesus Christ, as God, was ignorant of the Day of Judgment. S. Cyril proves, That that cannot be, because under this Title he hath created all things; he is the Counsel and Will of the Father, and knows all his Purposes: From hence he concludes, That when it is said, That he knoweth not the Day of Judgment, it ought to be understood of Jesus Christ, considered as Man, because under that Title he is subject to all the Imperfections of humane Nature, Sin only excepted.

The Fourteenth, How this Sentence ought to be understood; The Word was made Flesh: By the Word Flesh S. Cyril says, the Scripture understands the whole Man; as when it is said in the Prophets, That God pours out his Spirit upon all Flesh; and all Flesh shall see the Salvation of God.

The Fifteenth is against those who assert, That every Man receives his Reward immedi∣ately after his Death, before the Resurrection; and to prove it they make use of the Parable of Lazarus and Dives. S. Cyril maintains, That the Judgment ought not to be passed till after the Resurrection; and that it is absurd to say, That the Good or Sinners have received their Reward already: And that what is said of Lazarus and Dives is a Parable, which signifies only, that Merciless Rich Men shall one Day be grievously punished. This doth not at all agree with the particular Judgment and Blessedness of Souls after Death.

The Sixteenth, How the Angels, if they have no Bodies, can have any Carnal Knowledge of Women, as it is said in Genesis? S. Cyril answers, That they are not Angels, which are spoken of in Genesis, but the Posterity of Enos, who had Commerce with the Daughters of Cain: And for this Reason it is that Four Interpreters, who have translated this Place after the LXX. have rendered it, Sons of the Mighty, or Princes, and not Sons of God; That, in Sum, it is a great Weakness, to think, That the Angels can have Children.

The Seventeenth and Eighteenth are against those who affirm, That the Person of the Son being made Man, and descending to the Earth, was not united to his Father, nor did inhabit in Heaven.

In the Nineteenth S. Cyril explains his Opinion about the Incarnation, and holds, That it may be said, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ did Miracles, because the Word, and Man being united in the same Person, and in the Son only, both the Divine and Humane Operations may be attributed to him.

In the Twentieth it is said, That Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven, with the Flesh, which was united to him; but for all that, it cannot be said that the Body of Jesus Christ was mingled with the Trinity.

In the Twenty first he treats also of this nice Question, In what Sence the Flesh of Jesus Christ may be said to do Miracles? and explains it by this Example; although it be the Soul that moves the Body in all its Operations, yet we call it the Action of the Body, as well as of the Soul. The same •…•…ay be said of the Miracles which the Word doth by his Humanity.

In the Twenty second he says, That the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ was subject to Sin certainly, because he came to deliver Man from Sin.

The Twenty third Question is this, Why the Word was not made Man at the beginning of the World? Why staid he till these last Times? S. Cyril answers, That he acted the part of a good Physician, who does not undertake the Cure of a Disease in its beginning, but waits till the Disease plainly discovers it self. So did the Word wait till the Sins and Wickedness of Man had fully manifested themselves.

The Twenty fourth imports, That the Head of the Infernal Dragon shall not be entirely broken till after the Resurrection. This puts me in mind of the Title of a very fantastical Book, A Treatise of the broken Head of the Infernal Dragon. I believe the Author had not read this Place of S. Cyril.

The Twenty fifth is a very obscure Comparison, between the Flame that appeared to Moses in the Flaming-Bush, and the Mystery of the Incarnation.

In the Twenty seventh he saith, That Zacharias was slain between the Temple and the Altar, for suffering Mary to enter into that Place, where the Virgins only had a Right to enter.

The last explains, in a few Words, the Causes of the Joy, which the Angels shewed at the Birth of Jesus Christ.

The following Treatise, about the Holy Trinity, is written by an Author more modern than S. Cyril, although it comes very near his Doctrine, and his Method, and Principles, but it is easy to discern that he lived after the Rise of the Heresy of the Monothelites, for he throughly discusses this Question, Whether there are Two Wills and Two Operations in Jesus Christ. He confutes those that hold the contrary, and explains the Sence of the Ancients,

who taught, That there was in Jesus Christ but one incarnate Nature, and one Operation as God-man.

The Collection of Expositions upon the Old Testament is not wholly taken out of the Works of S. Cyril only, but also of S. Maximus, and several other Interpreters: So that it must not be looked upon as S. Cyril's Work.

Balthazar Corderius published 19 Homilies upon Jeremiah, printed at Antwerp (in Greek and Latin) in 1648 [Octavo] which bear the name of S. Cyril * 1.47. As for the Moral Fables put out by the same Author in 1631. under the name of S. Cyril, they belong to a Latin Au∣thor. The 16 Books upon Leviticus, which were heretofore among S. Cyril's Works, are Origen's. It is nothing to the purpose, that some have doubted, whether the Treatise of the Adoration in Spirit be S. Cyril's, since it is his Style, and Photius attributes it to him. Nor is there greater reason to doubt of the Letter to Coelosyrius, nor of the other Works of which we have spoken.

He made Commentaries upon all the Prophets, but they were never yet printed. His Com∣mentary upon S. Matthew, cited several times in the 6th. and 7th. General Councils, and that upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, cited by Theodoret, are lost. If we may believe Cassiodorus, he made Commentaries upon all the Books of Holy Scripture. Gennadius mentions two Treatises of S. Cyril's, which we have not, viz. A Treatise of the Defect of the Synagogue; And a Book of Faith against the Hereticks. The same Author assures us, That he composed divers Treatises upon various Subjects, and a great number of Homilies, which the Grecian Bishops got by Heart to preach to the People. So that tho' the Works of S. Cyril, which we now have, make up at present 7 great Volumes, yet we should have several others, if we had all that he hath written. It is very wonderful, That a Bishop of so great a See as that of Alex∣andria, busied with so many Affairs, and engaged in so great a Contest as that with the East∣ern Bishops was, should have time to compose so many Works. But S. Cyril was wonderfully ready at Composing, and applyed himself to a way of Writing, which it is easie to furnish out, for either he copyed out Texts of Scripture, or made large Discourses, or expounded Allegories. It is easie to make great Works of this Nature in a little time, especially, when we bestow no time to polish our Discourse nor keep it within certain bounds, and we resign up our Hand and Pen entirely to all the Notions that come into our Heads. After this manner did S. Cyril write, and he was so much accustomed to this way of Writing, that he had, as Photius observes, a Style altogether particular, which seemed contrary to others, and in which he extreamly neglected the exactness and cadency of his Expressions. He had a Subtle and Metaphysical Genius, and readily spake the finest Logick. His Wit was very proper for sub∣tle Questions, which he had to do with upon the Mystery of the Incarnation. He held the See of Alexandria 32 years, and died in 444.

There were divers Collections of S. Cyril's Works in Latin, before the Edition in Greek and Latin at Paris, Anno 1638 * 1.48. The First was at Basil in [1546. in 4 Tom. by Georgius Trapezuntius, and again, in] 1566. The Second, at Paris [by Gentian Harvett in 2 Tom.] in 1573. The Third, by Sonnius at Paris in 1605, which is the largest. There are several of his Treatises printed by themselves in Greek and Latin, as the Treatise of the Worship of God in Spirit and Truth, published by Agellius, and printed at Rome in 1588. That of the Or∣thodox Faith in Greek and Latin by Beza in 1570. His Writing against the Anthropomor∣phites, put out by Vulcanius, and printed at Amsterdam in 1605. The Commentaries upon the 12 small Prophets [in Greek and Latin] at Ingolstadt in † 1.49 1607. The Treatise against Nesto∣rius in Greek and Latin by Agellius at Rome * 1.50 in 1607. The Books against Julian in Greek and Latin by Borbonius at Paris, in 1630. Some small Tracts in Greek by Meursius. His Paschal Homilies by Andrew Salmatias at Antwerp, in 1618. The Book of the Trinity in Greek and Latin, by Wegelinus at Ausburg in 1604, and 1608. And several Letters and Treatises among the Councils.

There is a Lexicon, and a Treatise of Animals, which bears the Name of Cyril, but it is certainly some other Cyril, not the Patriarch of Alexandria.

MARIUS MERCATOR.

THis Author remained a long time in obscurity. The ancient and modern▪ Composers of Bibliotheca's have spoken nothing of him. His Works have been but lately recovered. * 1.51 He began to write in S. Austin's Life-time, who assures us in his 193d. Letter, written in 418. That M. Mercator, to whom it is directed, had made a Treatise against the New Here∣ticks; that is to say, against the Pelagians. S. Austin speaks of him, as a Man of Worth and Learning. It is probable he was an Italian a 1.52, and he seems to have been but a meer Layman b 1.53.

This Man was one of the most zealous Adversaries of the Hereticks of his time, and especially of the Pelagians, whom he pursued vigorously, publishing Memoirs against them, and Collections of Pieces to discover their Errors, and bring them to Condemnation.

The first Work which he composed, was a Discourse against the Opinions of the Pelagians, in which he hath collected several Texts of Holy Scripture, as S. Austin tells us in his 193d. Letter. We have not this Work unless it be the Hypognosticon, which bears the name of S. Austin, as we have guessed in the first part of this Tome of our Bibliotheca, p. 256.

The Second is an Historical Commentary against Coelestius, which he first made in Greek to * 1.54 publish at Constantinople, and which he presented to the Emperor Theodosius, Anno 429 c 1.55 that he might inform the Eastern Christians of the Condemnation of Coelestius and his Follow∣ers. The Title of this Commentary discovers the time, occasion, and the effect of it. Thus it is expressed; A Copy of the Commentary, which Mercator published in Greek against Coele∣stius, and which he not only gave to the Church of Constantinople, and disposed to several Per∣sons of Piety, but also presented to the Emperor Theodosius in the Consulship of Florentius and Dionysius, and which he afterward translated out of the Greek into Latin; which Commentary having discovered the Errors of Coelestius, was the Cause that Julian, and his Companions who defended them, were banished from Constantinople as well as Coelestius, by the Emperor's Edict, and afterward condemned in the Council of Ephesus, by the Judgments of 275 Bishops.

This Commentary is an Abridgment of the History of the Condemnation of the Heresie of Pelagius. Mercator tells us therein, That Coelestius, a Scholar of Pelagius, being come from Rome, where he had been almost 20 years, went to Carthage, where he was accused by Pau∣linus a Deacon of S. Ambrose, of several Errors, contained in 6 Articles, which he transcribes; That the Bishops of Africk had condemned them in a Synod, and had enjoyned Coelestius to Anathematize them; That he thought it convenient to appeal to the Bishop of Rome, but neg∣lecting to prosecute the Appeal, he came to Ephesus, where he procured himself to be ordain'd Priest; That from thence he passed to Constantinople in the time of Atticus, but being known, he was driven from thence by that Bishop, who wrote circular Letters against him; That Coelestius seeing himself thus thrust out, went to Pope Zosimus, and pretending to condemn the Articles which were charged upon him, he obtained Letters in his favour directed to the Bishops of Africk. But these Bishops having given Zosimus information in writing of all that had passed, Coelestius, who would not perform what he had promised, durst not appear before Zosimus again, and so withdrew himself from Rome. Whereupon Zosimus condemned him by a long Writing, which contained the Articles of Coelestius, and all the Story of his Condem∣nation. Mercator next speaks of the Errors of Pelagius, Master of Coelestius, which he relates in the very words of Pelagius taken out of his Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles. He adds, That these Errors having been condemned by Zosimus's Letter sent into all parts, and confirm∣ed by the Consent and Subscriptions of the Bishops of other Countries. Julian and his Asso∣ciates who would not sign them were banished out of Italy by the Imperial Law, and deposed by the decrees of the Synods, and that some of them having acknowledged their Error were received and confirmed by the Holy See.

Mercator adds, That Pelagius and Coelestius had been already condemned by Inn••cent, Zosi∣mus's Predecessor; and to prove it, he goes back to the Original of the cause of the Pelagians. Pelagius, saith he, retired into Palastine after the taking of Rome. His Writings falling into the Hands of some Bishops, they found many things in them contrary to the Catholick Faith, and they sent them into Africa, where they were read and examined in three Councils, who wrote them to the Holy See. The Bishop of Rome condemned these Books, and excommuni∣cated Pelagius and Coelestius. Pelagius was also accused to a Synod held at Jerusalem, but he escaped the Condemnation which he deserved by deceiving the Bishops with his Subtletics and Shifts. He was condemned in a second Synod, wherein Theodotus Bishop of Antioch was Pre∣sident, as the Letter written in the Name of this Bishop, and Prailus Bishop of Jerusalem, con∣vinces us. He then recites the particular Errors of Pelagius condemned in this Synod, and ends his Commentary with an earnest request to Julian and his Adherents to condemn Pelagius and Coelestius, who have been convicted of so many Errors.

The third Work of M. Mercator is another Commentary against the same Hereticks written after the death of S. Austin. In it he describes the Original of the Error of Pelagius, of which he makes some Syrians, and principally Theodorus of Mopsuesta, the Authors. He adds, That Rufinus who was a Syrian also, who brought it first to Rome, not daring to publish it there, taught it to Pelagius * 1.56 an English Monk, who inserted it in his Commentaries upon S. Paul. That Coelestius, a Person of Quality and Wit, but who was born an Eunuch, had joyned him∣self to Pelagius, and had comprized his Doctrine in 6 Articles, which he dispersed among the People. That altho' his Errors had been condemned, Julian had undertaken to defend them in large Books, to which S. Austin had opposed long and effectual Answers. That after he had read these Works, he had also made some short Observations upon the Writings of Julian, which he had collected and made publick to satisfie the desire of Pientius the Priest. He chiefly opposes 4 Errors of Julian in it. 1. That Concupiscence is not the consequent or effect of the Sin of the first Man, but it is natural to Man. 2. That Death entred into the World by the Sin of Adam, but that it passed upon other Men only, because they imitate the Sin of Adam. 3. That the Sin of the first Man hath not descended to his Posterity. 4. That Baptism pardons the Sins of those who have them; and as for Infants that have none, it per∣fects their Natures by the Gifts of Grace. M. Mercator recites the Passages of Julian, where he expresly lays down these Propositions, and then confutes them by close Notes, in which he mixes sharp and biting Expressions against Julian. He passes not over any suspicious Sen∣tence; and whereas he uses the word Innovation for Renovation, he blames him for it, tho' S. Austin hath made use of both. He observes, that the Orthodox do not assert, That Sin is natural to Man, but that Original Sin cleaves to the corrupted Nature of Man. He shews him, That he contradicts himself in saying, That Death passed upon all for Adam's Sin, and yet it hath Dominion over them only who imitate his Transgression. Lastly, he proves by all that is said in Holy Scripture concerning the Redemption of Jesus Christ and of Baptism, that it necessarily supposes, That all Men, yea, Infants themselves, are in Sin, before they are renewed and regenerated by that Sacrament.

M. Mercator is not contented to oppose the Authority of the Church against Julian and the Pelagians, but he also brings the Testimony of Nestorius against them, who received them so well, and wrote in their favour to Pope Coelestine, and sent a consolatory Letter to Coelestius. Next he produces with the 3 Letters of Nestorius written for them, the Extracts of 4 Ser∣mons preached by that Bishop in the presence of the Pelagians, wherein he affirmed, 1. That the fall of Adam hath been the cause of all the Miseries to which the nature of Man is subject, and of the bondage by which it hath been brought under the Tyranny of Satan. 2. That Jesus Christ is come to redeem Man from his Sins, to blot out the Hand-writing that was against him, and set him at liberty. 3. That it is by the Sacrament of Baptism that he works these things, and that Catechumens are always subject to the Curse of Sin, till they have received this Sacrament. The Third of these Sermons is in Greek among the Works of S. Chrysostom, of Savil's Edition, Tom. 7. And F. Garner hath caused it to be printed with the Extracts of Marius Mercator.

But because Julian might brag, That Theodorus of Mopsuesta Bishop of Cilicia was for him, M. Mercator undertakes to shew, That this Bishop had Heretical Opinions about the Incarna∣tion. And to prove it, he translates a Creed attributed to Theodorus of Mopsuesta; and at the end annexes an Observation, shewing, That the Doctrine contained in that Creed is Hereti∣cal; and that it supposed, That Jesus Christ is made of two Natures, and not of two Na∣tures united in one and the same Person. He confutes that Error, and proves the Doctrine of the Church by Texts of Holy Scripture.

He demonstrates also in another Writing the agreement there is between the Error of Ne∣storius and of Paulus Samosatenus.

And for the more full Conviction of Nestorius and his Followers, he rehearses long Extracts of Nestorius's 5 Sermons, a Letter to S. Cyril, and the Extracts of his Books, and he opposes to them the two Letters of S. Cyril to Nestorius, and a third Letter of the same Person to the Clergy of Constantinople.

He also examines the Aphorisms of Nestorius opposed to S. Cyril's, and when he hath con∣suted them in order, he delivers briefly the Faith of the Church concerning the Incarnation, and discovers the different Errors of those that have opposed it. For the confirmation of what he was about to propound, he produces out of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, whatsoever is most direct and convincing against the Heresie of Nestorius. He joyns to this a Transla∣tion of S. Cyril's two Apologies made for the defence of his Anathema against the Orientals. He endeavours to render the Doctrine and Person of Theodoret odious, by reciting the Extracts of his Treatises and Letters. He treats him as an Heretick and a wicked Man, altho'he owns, That he did at last approve of S. Cyril's Doctrine, tho'he would not condemn Nestorins. He relates a Fragment of the Council against Domnus of Antioch, where Theodoret is accused to have spoken against the Memory of S. Cyril, saying, That the Aegyptian Heresie was buried with him. And from hence he concludes, That Theodoret ought to be condemned as well as Theodorus and Nestotius. And to convince Theodorus of Error and Heresie, he recites some Fragments of his Books against S. Austin, to which he joyns some Extracts out of his Master Diodorus. He accuseth Ibas Bishop of Edessa to have published this Blasphemy; I do not envy Jesus Christ his Divinity, because I can become so as well as he, for he is of the same nature with my self. He quotes a Passage taken out of a Sermon of this Author, which contains nothing like it. He adds to all this, an Extract of a Sermon of Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, which he affirms to have been of the same Judgment with Nestorius, and concludes this Colle∣ction with a Reflection against the Nestorians and Eutychians, which are two contrary Here∣sies equally rejected by the Orthodox. He hath brought against both of them some Testimo∣nies taken out of the Sermons of John Bishop of Tomi, a Province of Scythia, but they are not to be found at present in the Collection of Mercator's Works. This Conclusion discovers, That this Collection of Pieces was made after the Heresie of the Eutychians was known by that Name, i. e. after the Council of Chalcedon, which was held in 451. Nevertheless the reproachful manner, after which he speaks of Theodoret, who was received in that Council, would make us believe, That this Collection was compiled some time before, but that we know that there were always some Persons, who would never forgive Theodoret for quarrelling with S. Cyril.

There is also at the end of Marius a Translation of these following Pieces. The Letter of Nestorius to S. Coelestine, a Synodical Letter of S. Cyril against Nestorius, and the Scholia of the same Father upon the Incarnation against Nestorius. These Pieces ought to be joyned to the preceeding.

M. Mercator is no very eloquent Author, nor indeed does such Works as he composed require much Eloquence: It is enough in such sort of Memoirs and Collections, that they be exact and faithful. He translated the Greek elegantly and faithfully. His Style is not intri∣cate, but hath nothing noble or lofty, and degenerates into Childishness, when he undertakes to confute others of his own Head. His Collection hath been of great Use in the Latin Church; and we see that Facundus and Pelagius the Second have used his Translation.

There are Two Manuscripts of the Works of this Author, the one in the Vatican, the other in the Library of the Church of * 1.57 Beauvais. F. Labbe printed the Historical Commentary of M. Mercator first, in his Edition of the Councils [Tom. 2.]. and designed to have pub∣lished the rest of the Works of that Author; But dying before he had performed his Promise, F. Garner, his Fellow-Jesuit, publish'd them [with his own large and learned Commentaries, at Paris] in 1673. But he has changed the Order, in which his Works were put, in the Two Manuscripts, hath added many other Pieces to them, and increased the Bulk of the Volume much, by long Notes, and a great number of Dissertations upon the History of the Pelagian's and Nestorians.

At the same Time F. Gerberon, a Benedictine, put out, under the borrowed Name of Rig∣berius, the Commentary against Julian, the Translation of † 1.58 the Sermon of Theodorus of Mop∣suesta, with his Preface, the two Letters against Nestorius; and the Treatise of a Nestorian, he did not put in the First Historical Memoir, because it was printed already in the Second Tome of the Councils, by F. Labbe. This Edition of M. Mercator is very small, in Twelves, Printed at Brussels in 1673. His Notes are not so long as F. Garner's, but they are full as useful and learned.

It is easy to see that these Editions were defective, for F. Garner's was not so much an Edition of M. Mercator, as a great Commentary upon the History of the Pelagians and Nestorians; F. Gerberon's contained but a small part of his Works: Besides, neither of them had consulted the Manuscripts exactly, F. Garner contenting himself to follow that of Beauvais, and F. Gerberon that of the Vatican. These Reasons induced M. Baluzius, who hath taken so much Pains all his Life-time, to clear and restore the Ecclesiastical Antiquities, to publish a new Edition of Mercator's Works, in which he printed the Text, as it is in these two Manuscripts before-mentioned, and explains, by short Notes, those Places which have any Difficulty in them, without digressing into common Places upon the History or Doctrine of the Hereticks, which are spoken of in M. Mercator's Works. This Edition was put out at Paris in 1684. by Francis Mugvet, in Octavo.

ANIANUS.

ANIANUS, a Latin Author, a Deacon of a City called Celeda a 1.59, was one of the Defenders of Pelagius b 1.60. S. Jerom tells us, That he wrote Books against his Letter to Ctesiphon; in which he maintains, by large Discourses, the Doctrines which Pelagius taught. He translated Fifteen Homilies of S. Chrysostom, viz. the Eight First upon S. Matthew, and seven Sermons of the Praises of S. Paul; and hath put, at the Beginning of these Translations, Two Letters, the One to Orontius, the Other to Evangelus: In which he declares himself openly against the Scholars of S. Austin, to whom he gives the Name of Traducians. The Ancient Translation of S. Chrysostom's Homily to the * 1.61 Neophytes, which was made, as S. Austin observes, in his First Book against Julian, ch. 6. by a Scholar of Pelagius, may be attributed to him. This Author was well skilled in Greek, and wrote Latin well enough: S. Jerom accuses him for using Jingling Words, verbis tinnulis & emendicatis: This appears chiefly in the two Letters, which serve as a Preface to the Translation of S. Chrysostom's Homilies. He flourished in the Beginning of the Fifth Age; but we must not confound him, as Sigibert hath done, with him that wrote the Theodosian Code, in the Time of Alaricus, at the beginning of the Sixth Age.

JULIAN.

JULIAN, born in Apulia a 1.62 about the Year 386. the Son of Memor or Memori∣us, b 1.63, who is thought to have been Bishop of Capua and Julienna, married the Daughter of Aemilius, [Bishop of Beneventum,] named Ja. Afterward he became a Clergyman. He was a Deacon when S. Austin wrote his Thirtieth Letter to his Father: Where he gives a Commendation of Father and Son. He was ordained c 1.64 in 416. by Pope Innocent, Bishop of Eclane d 1.65, a City situate between Campania and Apulia. So long as this Pope lived Julian did not discover his Opinions, but soon after his Death he declared himself for the Doctrine of Coelestius and Pelagius. Gennadius assures us, That before this he passed for one of the most learned Doctors of the Church, but he doth not take notice of any of his Works in particular, and 'tis not certain that he had then composed any. However that be, we have none of his Works but what might have been composed before he declared himself against S. Austin; But we have considerable Fragments of the Writings which he made against the Church.

In the Popedom of Zosimus he began to maintain the Opinions of Coelestius, in his Discourses which he held at Rome. He then set himself to cry down, by Writing, the Doctrine of S. Austin, and the Church, concerning Original Sin.

The First thing he did was, to write in his own Name to Pope Zosimus. We have some Fragments of this Letter in M. Mercator. Not long after he addressed a Second Letter to him, in the Form of a Profession of Faith, written in the Name of Ten Bishops of that Age: F. Garner hath put out this. Julian owns, That he was the Author of it, as well as of that which was directed in the Name of the same Bishops, to Rufinus Bishop of Thessalonica. 'Tis this which S. Austin recites, in his Three last Books to Bonifacius. These Letters were written in 418.

The First Book of S. Austin, concerning Concupiscence and Marriage, falling into the Hands of Julian, he wrote, in 419. Four Books, dedicated to Turbantius, against the First Book of S. Austin. A little after he was banished out of Italy, by the Force of the Emperor's Edict, and was compelled to retire into the East. He went into Cilicia, to find Theodorus of Mopsuesta; and there made, if we may believe M. Mercator, Eight Books, dedicated to Florus, Bishop of Beneventum, against the Second Book of S. Austin, concerning Concu∣piscence and Marriage. Sometime after he withdrew from Cilicia, and, if we give credit to what Mercator says, he was condemned, after his Departure, in a Synod of the Province of Cilicia. It may be, he returned into Italy, but being again banished from thence, he retreated to Constantinople; where he was rejected by Atticus, and afterward by Sisinnius. But Nestorius, a Scholar of Theodorus, being chosen Bishop of Constantinople, favoured them, and sent two Letters in their behalf to Coelestine. At this Time it was that M. Mercator presented his Memoir against Coelestius, Julian, and his Companions; and obtained thus much by his Solli∣citations, that they were banished from Constantinople. They went to the Council of Ephesus, where they were received by John Bishop of Antioch: But the Council condemned them, and confirmed all that had been done against them in the West; so that Julian always remained excluded from the Church, and banished from Italy. He used his utmost Endeavours to gain Entrance into them under Pope Sixtus, but all in vain. Gennadius says, That he died under Valentinian, i. e. before the Year 455. after he had given all his Estate to the Poor, to relieve them by that means in a Famine, and so drew over several Persons to his Party. Some hold, That he was in Sicily, where he spent the last part of his Life in teaching a School, and that this Inscription was put on his Tomb.

Here lieth in Peace JULIAN an Orthodox Bishop.

Which Epitaph was to be seen in the Ninth Age. These are the Works of Julian, of which we are now coming to speak.

Some Fragments of the Letter to Zosimus, in M. Mercator, lib. subn. c. 6. n. 10. &c. 9. n. 3. He owns, in these Fragments, That Death entred into the World by the Sin of Adam. A long Profession of Faith, published by Father Garner, in Dissert. 5. Par. 1. of the Works of M. Mercator. This Profession of Faith hath Four Parts. The First contains the Articles of the Creed explained; among which he placeth the Necessity of Baptism for all Ages. The Second is an Abridgment of his Doctrine about Grace and Free-will: Which may be reduced to Five Propositions. 1. That Man is absolutely free, to do Good or Evil. 2. That to do Good, he hath need of Grace, but that Grace is never wanting to him. 3. That the Nature of Man is good and perfect. 4. That there is no such thing as natural Sin, or by what∣ever Name else it may be called. 5. That the just Men of the Old Testament were justified by their Works, and by Faith in Jesus Christ. The Third Part rejects the Errors of the Arians, Sabellians, Eunomians, Macedonians, Apollinarists and Novatians, to whom are joyned the Jovinianists, such as assert, That Man, justified by Baptism can never sin. Next, he comes to the Manichees, with whose Errors he confounds the Doctrine of the Orthodox, which he exposes after an odious Fashion.

They, saith he, who defend natural Sin, affirm, That the Devil is the Author of Marriages; That Children that are born of them are Children of the Devil; That all Men are born in his possession; That the Son of God did not begin to pour down his Graces upon Men but from the time of his Incarnation; That Sins are not entirely forgiven by Baptism; That the Saints of the Old Testament are dead in a State of Sin; That Man is necessitated to Sin; That Sin cannot be avoided, even with Grace. Lastly, he condemns the gross Errors of the Pelagians, viz. Those, who said, That Men can avoid Sin without the help of God; That Infants ought not to be baptized, or that other Terms ought to be used in baptizing them; That they, who are born of bap∣tized Parents, have no need of the Grace of Baptism; That Mankind died not by Adam, and is not raised by Jesus Christ.

In the last part, the Bishops, in whose name this Profes∣sion was written, declare to Zosimus, That if he still persists to molest them, they will appeal to a fuller Synod; That they could not sign a condemnation passed against the absent, but were ready to suffer the worst rather than forsake Justice and Truth. He ends with a Pas∣sage of S. Chrysostom's Sermon to the Novices.

The Letter of Julian and other Bishop•• to Rufi••us of Thessalonica, is recited almost entire in the 3 last Books of S. Austin to Boniface. It contain'd the Heads of the Accusations, which we have delivered in speaking of that Treatise of S. Austin.

The first Book to Turbantius is recited entire in the second Book of S. Austin of Marriage and Concupisence. There are ••ragments of 3 other Books in the 6 Books of S. Austin against Julian. Lastly, all the 5 Books of Julian to Florus, are copyed out whole in the 6 Books of S. Austin's imperfect Work.

Beda makes mention also of three Books of Julian, * 1.66 A Treatise of Love, A Commentary up∣on the Canticles, and, A Book of † 1.67 Constancy. It appears by the Fragments which Beda hath taken out of those Works, That he delivers the same Principles in them, as in his other Books; That we are absolutely free to do good or evil; That the love of Man inclines him naturally to do good; and, That Man is not born in Sin. He cites in his Last Book a little Treatise of S. Chrysostom, which bears this Title, No Man is Hure but by himself.

Lastly, some attribute to Julian the Translation of the Profession of Faith, which bears the Name of Rufinus, but they bring no proof of it.

NESTORIUS.

NESTORIUS born at Germanicia a City of Syria, brought up and baptized at Anti∣och, withdrew himself into the Monastery of Euprepius, which was in the Suburbs of that * 1.68 City. He was ordain'd Priest by Theodorus, and in a little time acquired a very great Repu∣tation by his way of living and by his Sermons. Sisinnius Archbishop of Constantinople being dead in 4••7. the Ambition which the Clergy of that City had to obtain the Government of that Church, made the Emperour resolve not to suffer any of them to be chosen Bishops, and to cause a Clergy-man of some other Church to be chosen, notwithstanding the Pains that were taken to procure it by some, for Philip [of Sida], and by others, for Proclus. He cast his Eyes upon Nestorius, chose him * 1.69 by common consent, caused him to come from Antioch, and 3 Months after his Election he was ordained, and put in possession of the See of Constan∣tinople in the Month of April in the year † 1.70 428.

In his first Sermon, which he made in the presence of the Emperour, he declared the design he had to make War with the Hereticks, speaking boldly to the Emperour; Sir, Free the Earth from Hereticks, and I will give you Heaven; joyn in the War against them with me, and I will assist you against the Persians. Altho' the hatred which many of the People had for the Hereticks, made them approve of this Discourse; yet the wiser sort, saith Socrates, condem∣ned the Pride and Fierceness of it, and were amazed to see a Man before he had tasted, as he says, the Water of the City, declare, That he would persecute those who were not of his Opi∣nion. These Threatnings were followed with a suitable effect; for 5 days after his Conse∣cration, he attempted to demolish the Church where the Arians, tho' secretly, celebrated their Assemblies, and reduced them to so great despair, that they set it on F•••••• themselves, which being consumed, the Flame took the Neighbouring Houses. This Fire stirred up an unusual Disorder, and from that time he was called, An Incendiary. He did all he could to vex the Novatians, but the Emperour stopt his Fury. He exercised also so great Severities against those People of Asia, Lydia and Caria, who kept the Feast of Easter upon the xiv day of the Moon, that many Murthers happened by them at Miletum and Sardis. He persecuted also the Macedonians, and took their Churches from them. He did not spare so much as the Pela∣gians; but at length prevailed with the Emperour to make a Law against all Hereticks. He brought the Memory of S. Chrysostom into Veneration. He lived in a very regular and strict manner, and applyed himself diligently to the Duties of his Ministry. In a word, he might have passed for a great Saint, if he had not engaged himself to maintain an Opinion, which made him condemned as an Heretick. Which came this way to pass.

He had brought from Antioch a Priest called Anastasius, for whom he had a very particular esteem, and whom he made use of in all Affairs of Importance. This Anastasius preaching one day in the Church, ventured to say, Let no Man call Mary the Mother of God; Mary w•••• a Woman, and God cannot be born of a Woman. This Proposition gave great offence among the People, who accused this Priest of Impiety. A Bishop called Dorotheus confirmed the Opi∣nion of Anastasius, by saying Anathema to all that call the Virgin the Mother of God; and Nestorius himself, discoursing upon this Question in his Sermons, took his Priest's part, and al∣ways rejected the Name of the Mother of God.

The People being accustomed to hear this Expression, were much inflamed against their Bi∣shop, being perswaded. That he revived the Error of Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus, and believed, That Jesus Christ was a meer Man. The Monks declared themselves openly a∣gainst him, and separated themselves from his Communion. The People, and some more, considering Men followed their Example, insomuch that in a short time the Church of Con∣stantinople

was in a strange confusion; a Monk preached against his Bishop, Eusebius, after∣ward Bishop of Dorylaeum, made a solemn protestation against his Doctrine. Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum did preach 3 Sermons against him; and all the ancient Clergy of Constantinople op∣posed Nestorius; yet he still maintain'd what he had delivered, and made several Sermons more upon that Subject. His Party made a Collection of them, and sent them into Aegypt, which falling into the Hands of the Monks of those Parts, raised Disputes among them. This obliged S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, to write a large Letter to them, in which, having ac∣knowledged, That he had much rather not meddle with such subtle Questions, which are above the reach of humane Understanding, he declares against Nestorius's Opinion; and shews, by several Reasons, That the Virgin Mary may be called the Mother of God. Nestorius having seen this Writing of S. Cyril's, which was dispersed up and down Constantinople, and much con∣firmed his adverse Party, complained greatly of this carriage of S. Cyril. But he excused himself in a Letter written to Nestorius, exhorting him to confess, That the Virgin Mary may be called the Mother of God. Nestorius answered him with much Civility, but did not approve of that Term. S. Cyril wrote a second Letter to him, to which Nestorius returned an Answer, but did not fully approve of S. Cyril's Expressions about the Incarnation. He like∣wise wrote against the Letter, which S. Cyril had sent to the Monks of Aegypt, altho' Anasta∣sius declared at Constantinople, That he held nothing which was not in that writing of S. Cyril; since he himself owned, That no Council had used the Term of the Mother of God. I will not in this place relate what passed in the Consequence of this Business; how it was carryed to the Council of Ephesus; after what manner Nestorius behaved himself there; how he was condemned, and what was the Conclusion; because I shall be obliged to do this in speaking of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. I shall content my self to observe, That after the sentence of this Council, Nestorius never durst return to Constantinople, but hid himself in his ancient Monastery at Antioch, from whence he was taken four years after, in 435. by the Emperor's Order, and banished to Oasit. But the Barbarians having taken and destroyed that City, he was obliged to go into Thebais to the City of Panopolis, where he was not suffered to remain long; yea, he was so often removed from place to place, that he died in his Journey, being mortally bruised by a fall. Evagrius, who relates these Accidents, tells us, that he met with an Author who assured him, That before Nestorius died, his Tongue was eaten with Worms, as a punishment of the Blasphemies which it had uttered. But he brings no confirmation of this Circumstance, which may well be thought an invention of this Anony∣mous Author, because it was commonly supposed, That all Hereticks had a Tragical end.

Nestorius had a great freedom of Speech, and Gennadius assures us, That he had composed a great number of Treatises and Discourses before he came to Constantinople. We have none of these first; but there remain a great number of Fragments of his Sermons preached at Constantinople, and some whole Sermons also, with some Letters and other Works; of which this is the Catalogue.

A Fragment of his first Sermon that he preached at Constantinople, recited by Socrates, lib. 7. chap. 29. of his History.

Some Latin Fragments of 4 Sermons preached at Constantinople before Julian and the other Pelagian Bishops, in which he delivers Principles contrary to their Errors. These Fragments are recited in Latin by M. Mercator in F. Garner's Edition, Part 1. pag. 73. and in M. Ba∣luzius's, pag. 119. The third is perfect in Greek among the Works of S. Chrysostom, Tom. 7. of Savil's Edition, p. 301. and with a Latin Translation in M. Mercator by F. Garner, pag. 85. Part 1.

The first Sermon which he made to maintain what Anastasius the Priest had asserted, is tran∣slated whole almost by M. Mercator, and confuted by Cassian.

He preached several other Sermons upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, of which a Colle∣ction was made at the same time. Out of this Collection the Orthodox took several Extracts to discover his Doctrine. And for this reason it is that when they cite them, they ordinarily set down the Sheet. We have 4 Collections of these Extracts. The 1st. is that which was presented to the Council of Ephesus by Petrus Diaconus, Act. 1. Conc. tom. 3. p. 520. The 2d. is M. Mercator's, where the Extracts are only in Latin in Baluzius's Edition, p. 109. The 3d. is taken out of S. Cyril's Books of Contradictions against Nestorius; and the last is com∣posed of the Extracts of Nestorius, recited in the other Works of S. Cyril. F. Garner hath taken the pains to have these Collections printed in the 2d. part of his Edition of M. Merca∣tor from p. 95. to p. 112. He hath also attempted to restore these Sermons by putting these Extracts together, and by adding other Fragments to them, to bring them into their natural Order.

After the Sermon of Providence he hath put that De Theognosia or of the knowledge of God, which he frames out of several Passages quoted by S. Cyril, and in the Council of Ephesus, Part 2. pag. 8. These follow.

Some Fragments of a Sermon against the Macedonians and Arians, taken out of the Books of S. Cyril and the Extracts of the Council of Ephesus. This Sermon is cited by Arnobius Junior, in his Dispute against Serapion, which may convince F. Garner that he hath put two Sermons into one. So hard is it to put these Fragments exactly together.

A Sermon of the Incarnation against Prechis. It is recited in Latin by M. Mercator in the Edit. of F. Garn. par. 2. pag. 26. of Baluz. p. 70.

Another Sermon against the same Person taken out of the Extracts of S. Cyril, and of the Council of Ephesus, by F. Garn. p. 29.

Another Sermon upon these words, Consider Jesus Christ the Apostle and High-priest of our Profession, ibid. p. 30.

A Sermon against those, who upon the account of the Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ do render the God-head Mortal, or the Manhood Divine. This is a large Treatise re∣hearsed entire in Latin by M. Mercator, of which also we have some Extracts in S. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, in F. Garn. Edit. p. 34. Baluz. p. 56.

A Fragment of a Sermon upon Judas against the Hereticks taken out of S. Cyril's Books against Nestorius, and M. Mercator's Collection of Fragments, by F. Garn. p. 65.

A Fragment of a Sermon upon these words of Jesus Christ in S. Matth. c. 5. v. 23. If thou hast ought against thy Brother; taken out of the Council of Ephesus and M. Mercator's Col∣lection, p. 66. ibid.

A Fragment of a Sermon against the Macedonians, recited in the Council of Ephesus, and translated by M. Mercator, ibid. p. 67.

Another Fragment of Sermons recited in the Council of Ephesus and by M. Mercator, of F. Garn. Ed. p. 68. of Baluz. 109. &c.

A Sermon of Nestorius when he had received S. Coelestine's Letter, and the Bill of Com∣plaint which was made by S. Cyril, translated and recited entire by M. Mercator in the Edit. of F. Farn, p. 85. and of Baluz. p. 74.

Another Sermon preached the next Sunday, recited also in Latin by M. Mercator, of F. Garn. Ed. p. 93. of Baluz. p. 87.

The Fragments of two Sermons taken out of the Collection, Intituled, Of the Illustrious In∣stitution, recited in the 6th. Council, Tom. 6. of the Councils, pag. 318.

These are all his Sermons. His others Works are,

His first Letter to S. Cyril in Greek and Latin in the Council of Ephesus, part 1. ch. 7. pag. 316.

The second Letter to S. Cyril, ibid. ch. 9. p. 321.

Two Latin Letters to S. Coelestine, ibid. ch. 16, and 17. pag. 349, and 351. and in M. Mer∣cator of F. Garner's Edit. part 1. pag. 65.

A Letter to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, of which there is a Fragment in the 6th. Coun∣cil, pag. 319.

A Consolatory Letter in Latin to Coelestius related by M. Mercator in F. Garner's Edition, part 1. pag. 71. Baluz. p. 65.

The Anathematisms of Nestorius opposed to those of S. Cyril in the Acts of the Councils of Ephesus, part 1. ch. 29. p. 424.

The Letter of Nestorius to John Bishop of Antioch before the Council of Ephesus, in Lupus's Collection, p. 15. with a Sermon at the same time, ibid. p. 17.

The Declaration of Nestorius, wherein he puts a good sence upon what he had delivered in his Sermons, ibid. p. 23.

His Letter to the Emperour concerning what passed at Ephesus in the beginning of the Council, ibid pag. 30.

A Letter of Nestorius to Scholasticus the Emperor's Eunuch, written from Ephesus, ibid. 43. These 4 last Letters are also in M. Baluzius's new Collection of Councils, and in the last Tome of Theodoret of F. Garner's Edition.

A Letter to the Praefectus-Praetorio of Antioch, about the order he had received, command∣ing him to retire into his Monastery, ibid. pag. 68.

Three Letters of Nestorius written in his Banishment, of which Evagrius recites some Frag∣ments in lib. 1. of his History, ch. 7.

If we enquire diligently into these Writings, to know what was Nestorius's Doctrine about the Incarnation, we shall find, 1. That he rejected the Error of Ebion, Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus, and elegantly condemns the Error of those who dare affirm, That Jesus Christ was but a meer Man. 2. He maintains in express Terms, That the Word was united to the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, and that this Union was most intimate and strict. 3. That these two Natures being united together make but one Christ, one Son only, and likewise one Person only made up of two Natures. 4. That the Properties of the Humane and Di∣vine Nature may be attributed to this Person; and that it may be said, That Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, that he suffered and died; but he always denied that it might be said, That God was born, suffered or died; and herein consisted his Errour, for by reason of the Hypo∣statick Union of the Divine and Humane Nature, the Properties of the two Natures, of which it is compounded, may not only be affirmed of the Person, but it may also be said, That God is born, hath suffered and is dead; and that the Man ought to be adored, is become immor∣tal, impassible, &c. altho' it cannot be said, That the Divinity is born, is dead, or hath suf∣fered; or that the Manhood may be worshipped, is immortal or impassible.

Nestorius did not only reject the last Expressions, used by the Eutychians and Apollinarists, but he rejected the first, which usage had introduced into the Church, and would not own that

it might be said upon the Account of the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in Jesus Christ that God is born, hath suffered or is dead. From this Principle it follows, That he must reject the Term of the Mother of God; for if it may not be said, That God is born, it can't be said, That the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. He owned, That she might be called the Mother of Christ, i. e. of the Person made up of the two Natures, but he could not understand, how she could be called the Mother of God.

This Term, as we have seen, was the original of the Quarrel. It was in use in the Church, and all the World was offended to hear it condemned by Nestorius and his Followers. The People immediately believe••▪ That he did not acknowledge the Godhead in Jesus Christ, since he would not endure that his Mother should be called the Mother of God. But the more Learn∣ed knew well enough, That his Error consisted not in that Point, but in this; That by con∣demning this Expression, he destroyed the Union of the two Natures in one Person only, and seemed to allow of a moral Union only between them. The comparisons which he made use of, did incline them to believe that he was of that Opinion; for he said, That the Humanity was in Jesus Christ, the Temple, the Habit, the Veil of the Divinity; and compared the Union of the two Natures to the Union of Husband and Wife. Whence they concluded, That he allowed of no other Union between the two Natures, but an Union of Operation and Will, and not a real, substantial Union, notwithstanding the Protestations he made, That there was but one Christ, and but one Person. It is true, That Nestorius's obstinacy in rejecting the term of the Mother of God, and other Expressions of like Nature, which are consequent upon the substantial Union of the Two Natures, made Men think that he did not acknowledge the Hypostatick Union of the Two Natures, although he never durst affirm but that there were Two Persons really distinct in Jesus Christ, nor openly discover that he allowed only a Moral Union between the Two Natures. He likewise declared, That the Terms of the Mother of God disturbed him, upon no other account, but because he believed that they established the Error of Arius and Apollinarius, who confounded the Two Natures. But in that he was mistaken, and his Obstinacy in refusing to approve an innocent Term, and to receive the Expressions which confirmed the Union of the Two Natures in one Person, were a lawful and a sufficient ground tocondemn him, and a Proof of his evil Intention. This his Friend, John Bishop of Antioch, confesses in the Letter, in which he exhorts him to receive the Term of The Mother of God: Where he tells him, That though he was persuaded that his Doctrine was Orthodox, his obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Virgin is the Mother of God, might give cause to suspect that he was in an Error. Nor can we doubt but this Bishop did at length acknowledge that Nestorius was in an Error, and that his Obsti∣nacy deserved Punishment, since he forsook him, and would not suffer him in his Diocess. Theodorct defended him a long time, but he was at last forced to condemn him, as we shall see in the sequel: And indeed what possibility was there to defend him, when his most intimate Friends acknowledged him to be blame-worthy.

The Fragments of Nestorius's Works confirm the Judgment which the Ancients have given of his Style and Disposition. It appears, by what we have said, that he spake with Freedom and Elegancy; but that his Genius was mean, which had little Loftiness or Nobleness of Wit. All the Grace of his Sermons consisted in Descriptions, Metaphors and Apostrophe's, which are dry and insipid. In sum, they are very good Sence, and the Notions seem very rational, his Error excepted. He had but little Learning or Knowledge, but what he knew he set it out to the greatest Advantage.

JOHN▪ Bishop of Antioch, ACACIUS of Beraea, and PAUL of Emesa.

THEODOTUS, Bishop of Antioch, being dead, in 427, had for his Successor one named John, who was not known till after his Ordination, upon the occasion of the * 1.71 Contest which he had with the Orientals, against S. Cyril of Alexandria. He was summon'd to the Council, but came not at the Day appointed; and finding that S. Cyril had held a Council without him, he called another Council of the Bishops of his Party, condemned S. Cyril, and excommunicated the Bishops who had, with him, condemned Nestorius, under∣took his Defence, and persisted till the end of the Council in this Resolution, so that the East and Aegypt were some time divided: But at last Peace was made, and the Eastern Bishops abandoned Nestorius, and professed the Orthodox Faith, yet would not approve the Ana∣thema of S. Cyril. All this gave John Bishop of Antioch occasion to write several Letters. We have some of them in Greek and Latin, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and several

other in Latin, in the Collection of F. Lupus. There is also one of his Sermons in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 375.

Acacius, Bishop of Beraea, was also one of the principal Defenders of the Eastern Party. He was elder a 1.72 than John Bishop of Antioch, and had a great share in all that passed in that Business; but he always loved Peace. During the Council of Ephesus, he abode at Constantinople, where he did the Eastern Bishops no harm; for 'twas he that advised the Emperor to confirm the Deposition of Cyril and Nestorius. After the Council, during the great Dissentions, S. Cyril never durst break with him. It was to him that he sued to make up a Peace. He composed the Propositions, and at length brought it to a Conclusion. We have One of his Letters to S. Cyril, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Tom. 3. of the Councils, p. 382. and Two Letters to the Bishop of Alexandria in F. Lupus's Collection, p. 109, and 188.

Paul Bishop of Emesa, who supplied the Place of Acacius in the Council of Ephesus, was also very inclinable to Peace: 'Twas he that concluded it with S. Cyril, who prepared the Form of Faith which was to be approved on both Sides, and who made Two Sermons upon the Peace. We have these Monuments in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Tom. 3. of the Councils, p. 1089, and 1096, and a Letter of his to Anatolius, in the Collection of F. Lupus.

The Bishops of NESTORIUS's Party.

THere were other Bishops, who were more addicted to the Party and Doctrine of Nestorius than those of whom we have already spoken, who would by no means hear of a Peace, * 1.73 and whom the Aegyptians would not have included in it. Because we have some of their Letters, we will take notice of them in this Place.

Meletius of Mopsuesta, Successor of Theodorus, who was deposed in the Council of Ephesus, and banished. We have eleven of his Letters in the Collection of F. Lupus. Dorotheus, Bishop of Martianople, deposed in the same Council, and expelled out of the Council of Constantinople: There are Four Letters of his in the same Collection. Alexander Bishop of Hierapol••••, the Author of Four and twenty Letters, which are found in the same Collection. Zenobius Bishop of Zephyria in Cilicia, and some other Bishops, of whom we will speak afterward, who would never be comprehended in the Peace, and therefore were deposed and banished.

EUTHERIUS Bishop of Tyana.

EUTHERIUS Bishop of Tyana, of all the Bishops of the Party of Nestorius, hath left us the most considerable Monument. It is a Work which hath gone a long * 1.74 Time under the Name of Athanasius, which Photius attributes to Theodoret; but M. Mercator, who is more to be credited than Photius, cites it under the Name of Euthenius of Tyana. In the First Place, he describes, in the most odious manner, the Persecutions, which he pre∣tends were prepared for those of his Party to suffer. These are his Words:

It is said that our Enemies will not content themselves to go on in their, old Courses, to work the Ruine of the Simple and Unwary, but that they have a Design boldly to attempt whatever they please, being supported by the Authority of the Sovereign Power, that they will force others to be of their Opinions: That they will require Obedience to their Commands immediately, and deliver them to Justice that do not perform them; that they will bring them to Punishment, brand some with Disgrace and banish others; that they will frame false Accusations against them, and deprive them thereupon of their Dignities and Offices. I do not mention the Bonds, Prisons, Disgraces and Torments which they shall suffer, and the tragical Sights of those which they will put to Death. And that which is most to be lamented is this, That the Bishops are the Authors of this Tragedy. O prophane Compul∣sion! O intolerable Justice! When they begin to celebrate the Holy Mysteries, or to teach the People, they have in their Mouth this heavenly Speech, Peace be with you all. Nothing is so urgently commanded in Holy Scripture as Gentleness and Kindness; Why

then do they condemn us without taking Cognizance of our Cause? Why do they reject that which they do not know to be false? Why do they give the Name of Force to their Outrages? Why do they conceal their Cruelty under the Shadow of false Zeal? Why do they cover their detestable Politicks with the Name of Wisdom? What Tragedian is there that can describe these Things in a Style doleful enough? The Lamentations of Jeremiah would not suffice to describe so great Evils.

From hence we may see, that it is not a late Invention, for Persons who are not willing to forsake their Errors, to make those Charitable Severities which are made use of to recover them, to pass for insupportable Violences and unheard of Cruelties; by aggravating them and representing them in such an odious manner, as is proper to stir up Indig∣nation.

The Principles which he lays down in the following Part, are very agreeable with those of the Protestants. In the First Article he opposes those, who will have it determined, where the Truth is, by the Judgment of the greater Number.

Jesus Christ saith, he is the Truth (as Tertullian hath a long Time since affirmed) and 'tis he that we ought to consult. This be∣ing so, are they not to be pitied who judge of the Force and Authority of a Doctrine only by the Number of those who approve it; without considering that our Lord Jesus Christ chose ignorant and poor Men, whom he made use of to convert all the World. He re∣quired, that Millions of Men should yield themselves up to the Doctrines of these Twelve. Thus hath the Truth always triumphed, although it were among the smallest Number, and whosoever he be, that despairing to prove what he affirms to be true, flies to the Authority of the Multitude, he confesses himself vanquished. The great Number may affright, but cannot perswade: There are but few that shall be saved. S. Stephen, Phineas, Lot and Noah had the Multitude against them; yet who had not rather be on their Side than on that, which did oppose them? 'Tis not, saith the same Author, that I bear not a due respect to the Multitude; but it is to that which proves what it teacheth, and not to that which will not suffer us to examine and search out the Truth: 'Tis to that which doth not condemn with Severity, but correct with Gentleness; not to that which loves Novelties, but to that which preserves the Truth, which they have received from their Ancestors. But what is this Multitude which you object against me? It is the Throng of Men corrupted by Flat∣teries and Prisons: 'Tis the Number of ignorant Men, who have no Understanding to guide them: It is a crowd of weak and fearful Men, who suffer themselves to be con∣quered: They are the Souls which preferr the Pleasures that Sin affords us in this Life, which are momentary, before Eternal Life and Glory: So that when you object to me this Multitude, to gain Credit to a Lye, you do but discover the extent of Wickedness, and the great Number of the Miserable.

The Second Chapter is of like Nature with this First. In it he opposes those who main∣tain, That it is needless to search the Holy Scripture that we may know what we ought to believe, either because it is sufficient for every one to believe what his own Reason teacheth him; or, because in searching for the Truth in Scripture, we meet with more Obscurity and Uncertainty. Our Author cannot approve of this Advice: He saith,

That being perswaded of the Truth of the Mysteries, and trusting in the Help of Jesus Christ, who hath promised to those who seek after the Truth that they shall certainly find it, he seeks after the Truth in the manner that he ought, he shall find it without mistaking, that he puts himself into a Condition of proving what he teacheth, of instructing the Faithful, confuting Hereticks, and convincing himself of the Truth, and confirming the Doctrines, so as none can doubt of them. Would you have me, saith he, neglect the Study of Holy Scripture? whence then will you have Knowledge necessary to support your Faith? It is dangerous for this Life to be ignorant of the Roman Laws, and 'tis no less dangerous for another Life to be ignorant of the Oracles of our Heavenly King. The Scripture is the Nourishment of the Soul: Suffer not then the inward Man to die with Hunger, by depriving him of the Word of God. There are too too many who inflict mortal Wounds upon the Soul; suffer them to seek Medicines for their Maladies and Griefs.

But there are, say you, things which pass our Understand: I own it, but the Scripture teaches us, That we must search, and that there are things that we cannot comprehend: And as it would be a kind of Impiety to desire to throughly comprehend it, so it is to have a kind of Contempt for the Divine Truths, to lay aside wholly the search into them: Every one ought to know what it is he adores, as it is written, We know what we worship: But it is a Madness to enquire how much? After what manner? By what Means, and where we must adore him? In sum, they who discourage others from reading and studying the Holy Scripture, under a Pretence, That they ought not to dive into Things too pro∣found, do it because they are afraid that they should be convinced of their Errors by it. So when they find themselves pressed by convincing Testimonies of Holy Scripture, they give a Sence clear contrary to the Words; and if they find but one Word which can be brought to their Opinion, although it be nothing to the Sence of the Place, they must use it as an invincible Demonstration.

We must own that these Principles are not ill, although Men may offend in the Application they make of them.

In the other Chapters he answers the Objections which the Aegyptians made against the East∣ern Bishops, and opposes some of their Expressions; such as these: The Word hath suffered in an impassible manner: The Word hath suffered in the Flesh. He hath delivered several Expressions agreeable to those of Nestorius.

In sum. He hath written with much Elegancy and Reason. This Work is a Doctrinal Treatise, and not a Collection of Sermons. It is in Tom. 2. of Athanasius's Works under the Name of that Father, and since it hath been printed at the end of Tom. 5. of Theodoret's Works put out by F. Garner [at Paris in 1684.] There are also some of this Bishop's Letters in F. Lupus's Collection.

THEODOTUS Bishop of Ancyra.

THEODOTUS Bishop of Ancyra a City of Galatia, whom Gennadius calleth Theodorus, was one of the greatest Adversaries of Nestorius. He was present at the Council of Ephe∣sus, * 1.75 where he courageously delivered his Opinion against him. Gennadius says, That he made a Treatise on purpose to confute him, and that that Work was very Logical, but that it was not sufficiently grounded upon the Authority of Holy Scriptures, but lays down several Ar∣guments before he comes to Scripture-proofs. This description agrees well to the two Ser∣mons of Theodotus upon the Feast of the Nativity, preached in the Council of Ephesus, and which are recited in the Acts of that Council, where he proves, by several Arguments, That Jesus Christ is God and Man, and that it is truly said, That God is born of a Virgin.

There is also a 3d. Sermon preached at Ephesus upon S. John's day, where he likewise speaks against the Errour of Nestorius. The beginning of it is remarkable, wherein he compares a Bi∣shop to a Physician, Error to a Disease; And says, that as a Physician cuts off putrefied and gangrened Members to prevent the spreading of the Disease into the other parts; so Bishops are obliged to cut off the Members of the Church, but yet they ought not to do it but with regret, and in cases of necessity, when there is no other remedy left sufficient, and proper to effect the Cure.

He hath also a 4th. Treatise upon the same Subject, which was published [at Paris] in 1675. [in Twelves] by F. Combefis out of a MS. copyed by Holstenius * 1.76. It bears this Title, An Ex∣position of the Nicene Creed, but it is a confutation of Nestorius grounded upon the Nicene Creed. In it he makes mention of 3 Books, which he had written concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The Iconoclasts having quoted a Testimony of Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra against Images, Epiphanius maintained in the 7th. Council, Act 6. That that place was supposititious. And to prove it invincibly, he says, That he had collected all the Works of that Author, but never met with the Passage which they alledged. And then gives us the following Catalogue of them, viz. Six Books against Nestorius dedicated to Lausus: The Exposition of the Nicene Creed: A Sermon upon the Feast of the Nativity: Another upon the Purification: Another upon Elias and the Widow: Another upon S. Peter and S. John: Another upon the Lame Man, who lay at the Gate of the Temple: Another upon him that had received the Talents: And, lastly, upon the two blind Men. Altho' Epiphanius makes mention here of several of Theodotus's Works which we have not, yet we cannot say, that he forgot none. Nicephorus at∣tributes to him a Sermon upon the Virgin and S. Simeon. Some think, That it is the 4th. Ser∣mon among Amphilochius's, which bears his Name in a MS. in Cardinal Mazarini's Library. F. Combefis who published Theodotus's Exposition upon the Nicene Creed, assures us, That he had 4 Sermons more of this Author, and, among others, that upon the Purification of the Virgin Mary cited by Epiphanius.

The Style of this Author is short and concise, full of subtle Interrogations and cogent Ar∣guments. He speaks like a Logician or Controvertist, rather than like an Orator or Preacher. There is nothing very remarkable in his Writings, but we may observe in them a great deal of Artifice and Subtilty.

The Orthodox Bishops of S. Cyril's Party.

THese Bishops of S. Cyril's Party have written in the defence of the Church.

Acacius Bishop of Melitene made a Sermon in the Council of Ephesus, which is in the * 1.77 Acts of the Council, Tom. 3. of the Counc. p. 839. and wrote a Letter to S. Cyril, which is in F. Lupus's Collection.

Memnon Bishop of Ephesus hath written a Letter to the Council of Constantinople, which is found in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 762.

Rheginus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus made a Discourse in the Council upon the deposition of Nestorius, ibid. p. 577.

Maximian chosen in his place, wrote a Letter to S. Cyril, which is also in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 1061.

Lastly, To these Bishops may be joyned two Priests, the one called Alipius a Priest of Con∣stantinople, who wrote a Letter to S. Cyril, which is recited in the Acts of the Council, p. 785. and Charisius a Priest of the Church of Philadelphia, who presented a Petition to the Council of Ephesus, with a Form of Faith recited in the Acts of the Council, p. 673.

S. SIXTUS III.

SIXTUS, a Priest of the Church of Rome, was a long time one of the greatest Ornaments of the Roman Clergy. We understand by the two Letters which S. Austin wrote to him * 1.78 in 418. that he was a Protector of Pelagius and his Adherents, who therefore had given out a Report, That he was of their Opinion; but when they were condemned by Zosimus, he was one of the first that pronounced an Anathema against them: That he wrote a short Letter to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, in which he assures him, That he was not of Pelagius's Senti∣ments; and that he afterward made a larger Book, in which he explained his Opinions more amply, which were consonant to those of the Bishops of Africa, and contrary to the Errors of the Pelagians. We have neither this Letter nor this Writing, but this Story, and the manner in which S. Austin writes to Sixtus, shew us sufficiently how he was already looked upon in the Church of Rome. So that it is no wonder, that after the Death of S. Coelestine, which hap∣pened in 432. he succeeded him in the See of Rome. The Eastern Churches were then divi∣ded about the Condemnation of Nestorius. S. Cyril and the Aegyptian Bishops maintained what was done against him. John Bishop of Antioch and the other Oriental Bishops would not re∣ceive him, they excommunicated and condemned one another, and the Church was in danger of falling into a lamentable Schism, if the Prudence of S. Sixtus had not contributed to the Peace, which was concluded in the time of his Popedom. S. Cyril sent two Bishops to Rome in the Name of the Council, to encline the Pope to approve what he had done, and to declar•• himself openly against the Orientals. These two Bishops, called Hermogenes and Lampelius, at their arrival found S. Coelestine dead, and Sixtus in his place. This Pope graciously received these Messengers, approved what was said in the Council of Antioch concerning the Faith, and the Condemnation of Nestorius. But asto John Bishop of Antioch and the Orientals, he order∣ed, That if they would acknowledge and approve the Faith of the Council, they ought to be received. This he wrote to S. Cyril and the other Bishops in two Letters, which M. Cotelie∣rius hath published in Greek and Latin, in his 1st. Tome of the Monuments of the Greek Church, p. 42, and 44. And Mr. Baluzius hath put them in his new Collection of th•• Councils, p. 658.

These Letters had very good success and prepared their Minds for Peace. As soon as it was concluded, S. Cyril sent S. Sixtus the News of it, who shewed a great deal of Joy at it, and immediately wrote to S. Cyril and John Bishop of Antioch, to assure them, That he did join with them in their Reunion. We have these two Letters at the end of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 1175, and 1178. He wrote to S. Cyril, that at that time when he was much troubled for the condition of the Eastern Churches, he was greatly pleased to hear by his Letters, That all the Members of the Church were again united in one Body, excepting him only who was the Cause of all the Mischief; That he had imparted this good News to the Bishops of his Synod which was assembled upon his Birth-day. He adds, That John Bi∣shop of Antioch had never followed the Errors and Blasphemies of Nestorius; That he had only suspended his Judgment, and that he ought to rejoyce that he had at last declared himself for the right side; That it was an excellent Work to bring over so great Bishops, and that he thought it well done by himself, that he had not acted rashly in that Affair, but had waited till

the Vine of Jes••s Christ brought forth useful and pleasant Fruit: That S. Cyril ought entirely to forget the Inju••ies which the Oriental Bishops had done him in pronouncing the Sentence of Condemnation agai••••t him; That he had suffered undeservedly to render the Truth victori∣ous. Lastly, he tells him, That he expected that the Clergy of John Bishop of Antioch's Party should write to him.

He shews the same Joy to John Bishop of Antioch, and discovers the same displeasure against Nestorius. He praises him, That he made an elegant Profession of the Faith of the Church, and rejected Novelty to apply himself to the ancient Doctrine.

Altho▪ these two Letters are both dated the same day, which is Sep••. 15. 433. yet the Letter to John ought to bear date some days after the Letter of S. Cyril.

The 3d. Letter to the Oriental Bishops ascribed to S. Sixtus is an evident Forgery made up of Passages taken out of the 8th. Council of Toledo, S. Gregory the Great, Foelix III. Adrian, the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and it is in great part in the 3d. Epistle attributed to Fa∣bian, which is the Work of Isidorus Mercator, as well as this. This Let••er is written about an Accusation, which it pretends was brought against S. Sixtus by Bassus, who had been Con∣sul, from which he was cleared in a Synod, and Bassus was condemned. This Story is rela∣ted in the Pontifical, and we have the pretended Acts of that Council, but the very reading of them will fully satisfie us of their Falshood. They have the same date with the Letter, that is to say, they are dated in the year 440, some days after S. Sixtus's Death. Although the Author of the Pontifical places this Accusation in the 11th. year of S. Sixtus's Popedom, the Name of one of the Consuls is changed. The Acts themselves are nothing but an heap of Impertinencies and Fables. The Acts of the Condemnation of one Polychronius pretended to be Bishop of Jerusalem, given at Rome, is of the same stamp. There was no Bishop of that Name at that time. The date of these Acts agrees with the Pontificate of Leo, and yet they say he was condemned under Sixtus. They speak also of a Siege of Jerusalem, which is ima∣ginary. But if all these things did not, the reading of these Acts would discover the For∣gery.

We must not then give any Credit to the Acts of the Condemnation of Bassus. We are not sure that ever he accused S. Sixtus III. this Fact not being related by any credible Au∣thor; so that it is probable, that the whole Story is fabulous. Sixtus III. died in the Month of March, in the year 440.

PROCLUS.

PROCLUS was yet very young when he was made a Reader of the Church of Con∣stantinople. The Ecclesiastical Offices did not hinder him from following his Studies, and * 1.79 especially applying himself to Rhetorick. He was afterward Secretary to Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, by whom he was ordained both Deacon and Priest. After whose Death some pitched upon him to succeed him, but the Votes of the People were for Sisinnius, who or∣dained Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum. The Inhabitants of that City not being willing to accept of him, because they would not so apparently acknowledge the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople, he was forced to continue at Constantinople, where he got a great reputation by his Preaching. After the death of Sisinnius, he had again many Votes for him. But to ap∣pease the Heats which were among the Clergy of Constantinople, it was resolved to choose Nestorius a Priest of Antioch. After his Deposition, Proclus was propounded a third time to be Bishop of Constantinople, and he had been elected, if some Persons of great credit had not represented it as contrary to the Canons, which forbid the Translations of Bishops. Where∣fore he was rejected that time also, and Maximian was chosen; but at last he arrived at that Dignity, to which he had been designed so many times, and was ordained Bishop of Con∣stantinople after the death of Maximian, Anno 434. in the Month of April. He enjoyed that See peaceably to his death, which happened in 446.

The Sermons of this Author have been published at Rome, by Vincent Riccard in Greek and Latin, in 1630. and were inserted by F. Combefis in the first Tome of his Auctuarium to the Biblioth. Patrum, [at Paris in 1648.]

There are 20 of them, The 1st, 5th, 6th. are upon the Virgin Mary. In it he extolls almost only her Title of the Mother of God. The 2d. and 3d. are upon the Incarnation. The 4th. is upon the Nativity of Jesus Christ: This is near akin to the 2d. Sermon of Theo∣dotus Bishop of Ancyra. The 7th. is upon the Theophany, or the Baptism of Jesus Christ, which is in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. The 8th. upon the Transfiguration of our Saviour. The 9th. upon the Feast of Tabernacles. The 10th, upon Holy Thursday, and against Covetousness. The 11th. upon the Passion. The 12th. upon the Resurrection. The

13th. 14th, and 15th. upon the Passover. The 16th. upon Pentecost. The 17th. upon S. Steven the Protomartyr. The 18th. is a Panegyrick upon S. Paul. The 19th. is on S. Andrew. The last, is a Latin Fragment of a Sermon in the Praise of S. Chryso∣stom.

These Sermons are written in a concise and sententious Style, full of Antitheses, Interro∣gations, Exclamations and Points. The Notions are studied and subtle, but are of little Use and Instruction. He speaks the same thing an hundred several ways, and gives it abundance of different turns. This sort of composure requires a great deal of Labour and Application, and manifests the Wit and Liveliness of the Speaker. But it is of little use to the Auditors; it diverts them, and sometimes delights them, so long as they hear this studied Discourse, but ordinarily they go away from it, neither more knowing nor better affected; and they are scarce gone, but they forget all that has been said to them; for these pleasant ways of speak∣ing, which delight us only for the Curiousness and Delicacy, make not any impression upon the Mind nor Heart, and leave nothing behind them but a general Reminiscence, that they were much pleased with what they heard, but know not why. This is a true Character of Proclus's Sermons, who was mighty successful in this kind. By this he shews what he could have done, if he had made choice of a better Style, or had had the good luck to have lived in a time when Men had better Judgments.

CAPREOLUS.

CAPREOLUS Successor of Aurelius in the See of Carthage, sent in 431, his Depu∣ties to the Council of Ephesus with a Letter, which is set down in the Acts of that Coun∣cil. * 1.80 We have also a little Treatise which he wrote in answer of Vitalis and Constantius, Chri∣stians of Spain, who had consulted him, whether it might be said, That God is born of a Virgin. In it he proves this Truth, by shewing, That there is but one Person in Jesus Christ, and confuting those that are of a contrary Judgment. He speaks in this Treatise of the Con∣demnation of Nestorius, and of his Heresie in the Council of Ephesus; to which he says, That he sent his Deputies. It is very remarkable, That the 2 Spaniards apply themselves to Ca∣preolus, to desire of him, what they ought to believe in so important a Point as this is, and that they do it in the most submissive Terms. What would not the Divines of the Court of Rome say, if this consultation had been addressed to the Bishop of Rome? What Consequences would they not draw from such a Consultation in favour of the Pretensions of the Court of Rome? This Treatise was published by F. Sirmondus, and printed by Cramoisy [among Opu∣scula Veterum at Paris] in 1630, [Octavo]. [It is also in Bibl. Patr. Tom 7.]

ANTONIUS HONORATUS Bishop of Con∣stantina in Africa.

WE have a Letter of this Bishop directed to one named Arcadius, who was banished for the Faith by Gensericus King of the Vandals. He exhorts him to suffer patiently for * 1.81 Jesus Christ, and propounds to him several Examples of Holy Scripture to encourage him to persevere in his Sufferings with Constancy, that he may obtain the Crown of Martyrdom, which he gives him an assurance of, if he continues firm in the Faith. This Letter is short, and full of lively and cogent Notions and Expressions. In the end he brings some compari∣sons to explain the Mystery of the Trinity. It is found in the Biblioth. Patrum [Tom. 8.] [and in Baronius's Annals in the year 437.] It was written about the year 435.

VICTOR of Antioch.

THis VICTOR, a Priest of Antioch, hath made a Commentary upon the Gospel of * 1.82 S. Mark, which hath been translated into Latin, and published by Peltanus. It is thought this Author lived in the beginning of the Fifth Age * 1.83, or towards the End of the Fourth, for he says, upon the Thirteenth Chapter of S. Mark, That in his Time some Re∣mains of the Temple of Jerusalem were to be seen. He says also in the same Place, That there were yet some Christians, who put off Baptism to the End of their Life. In the next Chapter he speaks of the Heresy of the Novatians, as of a Sect then in being.

He observes in his Preface, That several Authors had written upon the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. John; That very few had bestowed their Labours upon S. Luke, but he could never meet with any that had written upon S. Mark, although he had exactly run over the Catalogues of the Works of the Ancients. He adds, That for this Reason he took up the Resolution to collect what the Doctors of the Church had observed upon divers Places of this Gospel, and compose a short Explication upon it. He says afterward, That S. Mark was also called John, and that his Mother was that Mary, with whom the Disciples abode at Jerusalem, of whom mention is made in the Acts. That it was he who accompanied S. Barnabas, and afterward joyned himself with S. Peter: That he wrote his Gospel at Rome, at the Desire of the Faithful of that City. S. Matthew had written his Gospel some time before.

This is what this Author says of S. Mark in the Preface of his Commentary. In his Commentary he applies himself to the Explication of the Letter and History, which he clears by very solid and judicious Notes and Observations. This Commentary was printed with that of Titus Bostrensis upon S. Luke, at Ingolstadt in 1580. and put into the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tom. 4.]

VICTOR of Marseille.

CLAUDIUS MARIUS VICTOR, or Victorinus, a Rhetorician at * 1.84 Marseille, hath made a Commentary upon Genesis, beginning at the Creation, and ending at the Death of Abraham. It was divided into Three Books, dedicated to his Son Aetherius. It is evident that it was composed by a Christian, and an Orthodox Person: But since prophane Learning was the principal Employment of this Author, and he was not instructed by any able Teacher in the Knowledge of Holy Scripture, this Work was very weak. He died under the Empire of Theodosius and Valentinian. This is taken out of Gennadius, Chap. 60. The Work of this Author, which is extant * 1.85 in the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tom. 8.] is a Poem in Latin Heroicks, and contains a Narration of the History of G•…•…s to the Death of Abraham. The Style of it is harsh, and the Verses are rough, but the Sence is Noble, and the History very well explained. There are at the end of it some Verses of the same Author, against the Corruption of the Manners of his Time.

SEDULIUS.

COELIUS SEDUIUS * 1.86, a Christian Poet, composed, under the Empire of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. about the Year 430. an Heroick Poem, of the Life * 1.87 of Jesus Christ: It is entitled, Opus Paschale, A Paschal Work, because that Jesus Christ is our Passover. It is divided into Five Books; The First begins at the Creation of the World, and runs through the most remarkable Histories of the Old Testament. The Three others contain the Life of Jesus Christ. This Work is dedicated to an Abbot called Macedo∣nius. It hath been reviewed and published by † 1.88 Turcius Asterius. Arator, Cassiodorus, Fortu∣natus and Gregorius Turonensis, mention it as an excellent Poem. He put it himself after∣ward into Prose, [and adding it to the former Four in Verse, made the Work to contain Five Books;] we have them both, with an Acrostick Hymn, which contains the Life of

Jesus Christ in short. This Author had a Genius, the Style of his Poem is Noble and Great, his Notions are Poetical, and his Verses very passable. It is not necessary to advertise [the Reader,] that this Sedulius is different from him who made the Commentary upon all S. Paul's Epistles, which is nothing properly but an Extract of the Commentaries of others. Since he quotes Authors much later than the Poet Sedulius, and among others S. Gregory the Pope, and Venerable Bede. It is evident that he lived a long Time after. This is he who was an Englishman and Co-temporary with Bede.

The Poem of Sedulius hath been printed by Aldus Manutius in 1502. at Basil [in 1528, 1534. and with the Notes of Antonius Nebrissensis] in 1541. and ••••th been put into the Bibliotheca Pa••••••m [Tom. 6.]

PHILIPPUS SIDETA.

THis is the Relation which Socrates gives us of this Author, and the Judgment he passes on him: PHILIP of SIDE, a City of Pamphylia, boasted▪ That * 1.89 he was the Father of Troilus the Sophist, a Native of the same City. Being but a Deacon, he conversed much with S. Chrysostom, and was afterwards ordained Priest. He was very laborious and diligent in the Studies of good Learning, and had made a great Collection of Books of all sorts. He composed several Works in an Asiatick Style, for he confuted the Books of Julian, and composed the History of Christianity, divided into Thirty Books: Each Book was parted into divers Sections, insomuch that there were in all near a Tho••s••••d. The Argument of every Section is as large as the Section it self. He gave this Book the Name of a Christian History, and not of an Ecclesiastical History, and collected in this Work many Curious and Learned Observations that he might seem a great Philosopher. He speaks often of Theorems of Geometry, Astronomy, Arithmetick and Musick. He spends much Time and Pains in describing Islands, Mountains, Trees and several other things of little Importance: By these Means he hath made his Book very great, and, in my Judg∣ment, useless, both to the Ignorant and Learned; for the Ignorant take no notice of the Ornaments of this Discourse, and the Learned condemn the vain Repetitions: Nevertheless, let every one give what Judgment he pleases of this Work. All that I shall say of it is this, That he inverts the Order of Time; for after he has related what passed in the Time of Theodosius, he ascends to the Time of Athanasius, and there often changes the natural Order of things.

Because he hoped to have been ordained Bishop of Constantinople in the room of Atticus, he takes the Liberty, in his History, to rail against the Ordination of Sisinnius, who was preferred before him, and reports very scandalous things of those who Chose and Or∣dained him.

Photius, who had read some part of this Work of Philip of Side, says much the same Things of it, and passes the same Judgment upon it, in Code 35. of his Bibliotheca.

I have read, saith he, the Work of Philip of Side, entituled, The Christian History, which begins at the Creation of the World, and goes on as far as the Story of Moses. Sometimes he treats of Things very short, and sometimes more copiously. The First Book contains Twenty four Sections, and the Twenty three others a like Number. These are all we have seen. He is full of Words, but they are neither pleasant nor elegant; but on the contrary are flat, and soon ••ire the Reader. We find in it a greater Shew of Learning than Profit. He puts in many things into his History, which are impertinent. Insomuch that he that sees this Work, would never call it an History, but a Miscellaneous Treatise, he makes so many needless Digressions. He was Con-temporary with Sisinnius and Proclus Bishops of Constantinople: He often speaks against the Former, in his History, being dis∣pleased, because being in the same Dignity, and in the same Church, Sisinnius was preferr'd to the Patriarchate before him, although he thought himself more Eloquent than he.

The Judgment which these Authors give of this Work, may make us not to be troubled much at the loss of it. [Niceph. Callistus quotes a Fragment of it.]

PHILOSTORGIUS.

PHILOSTORGIUS, born in Cappado••ia, about the Year 388, the Son of Carterius and Eulampia, undertook to write an Ecclesiastical History, but being brought up in * 1.90 Arianism, and engaged in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Party a 1.91, his Work is rather a Panegyrick of these Hereticks, than an History: Therein he openly declares against the Orthodox, he slanders them, blames them, and abuses them all-a-long it; on the contrary, he praises, at a venture, all the Arian Party. Aetius, according to him, was the greatest Man that ever was: He and Eunomius were the Restorers of the Faith. Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, Theophilus Bishop of the Indies, and several Arian Bishops, are the Saints that have done Miracles. In it the Semi-Arians meet with little better Treatment than the Catholicks. He blames the Deportment of Eudoxus, and describes Acacius, as a cunning Impostor. S. Gregory Nazi∣anzen is the only Person of the Orthodox whom the doth not abuse. He cannot likewise forbear commending S. Basil's Eloquence. In sum, he is full of Falsities, Lyes and Calumnies against the Orthodox Bishops; and he hath written with so much partiality that we cannot safely believe any thing he says: Yet there are many things that may be useful to the Church. He gives several Examples of God's Providence. He commends Fasting and Continency. He approves of the Worship of Martyrs, and the Reliques of Saints. He says, That the First Book of Macchabees is of greater Authority than the Second. He wholly rejects the Third. His Style is pleasant and elaborate. He makes use of Poetical Expres∣sions and choice Words very fitly. He is very happy in applying of Tropes and Empha∣tical Words; which would render his Discourse very fine and pleasing, if he used them moderately, and did not run the hazard of extraordinary and forced Expressions, which make it dull and flat. His Discourse is set out with so great variety of Figures, that it be∣comes thereby obscure and tedious. He hath, very often, very proper and Significant Words.

His History is divided into Twelve Books; it begins with the Controversy between Arius and Alexander, that is to say, in 320. and ends at the Time when Theodosius the younger admitted Valentinian III. into a Share of the Imperial Government with him, who was the Son of Placidia and Constantius, about the Year 425. Every Book begins with One of the Letters of his own Name.

This History of Philostorgius was had in so great Detestation among the Orthodox, that 'tis no wonder it has not been preserved entire to our Times: But we have an Abridgment of it in Photius, and some Extracts taken out of Suidas and other Authors. Jacobus Gotho∣fredus, a learned Lawyer, first published them, with his Translation and large Notes. This Book was printed at Geneva in 1634 * 1.92. Since, Mr. Valesius having reviewed this Abridgment by the Manuscripts, and corrected the Text in several Places, hath caused it to be printed with the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret and E••••grius [at Paris in 1673.]

NONNUS.

NONNUS, a Christian Poet, of the City of Panopolis in Aegypt, is reckoned among the Authors of the Fifth Age, though it be not exactly known at what Time he flou∣rish'd * 1.93. * 1.94 All that can be said is, That he lived after S. Gregory Nazianzen, but is more ancient than Justinian, since Agathi••••, who lived in the Time of this Emperor, quotes him in his Fourth Book of the Gothick Wars. His Style and Manners are suitable to the Authors of the Fourth Age. He hath made a Paraphrase upon S. John's Gospel in Verse, in a swelling and lofty Style. Aldur Manutius first published the Greek Text, in the beginning of the former Age, [in 1508. at Rome:] Several Versions have been since made of it, which were printed with the Text, at Lyons in 1590. at Frankfurt 1541, and at Heidelberg in 1596. Heinsius having spent much Pains upon this Work put out a new Edition of it [with his own Exer∣citations upon it] at † 1.95 Amsterdam in 1627. There was also another Edition at Paris by Cramoisy in 1623. 'Tis also in the Bibliotheca Patrum, printed [at Paris] in 1624. [It was also printed at Leyden in 1598. in Octavo, with Nansius's Notes.]

This Author also hath composed another Poem in the same Style, but upon a very different Subject. It is divided into Forty eight Books, called Dionysiacks, containing the fabulous Expeditions of Bacchus [written while he was an Heathen, printed in Greek at Antwerp in 1569. in Quarto, in Greek and Latin at Hanover in 1605. in Octavo, among the Greek Poets at Geneva in 1606. and with Cunaeus and Scaliger's Notes at Hanover in 1610.]

SOCRATES.

SOCRATES was born at Constantinople in the beginning of the Empire of Theodosius. He studied Grammar under the two famous Grammarians Helladius and Ammonius, who * 1.96 had withdrawn themselves from Alexandria to Constantinople. After he had finished his Studies, and for some time had professed the Law, he undertook to write the Ecclesiastical History, from the year 309, where Eusebius ends, and continues it to the year 440. He there relates, in 7 Books, the great Events which happened in the Church from the Conversion of Constan∣ti••e. This History is written, as Mr. Valesius observes, with a great deal of Judgment and Exactness. His Exactness appears, in his being industrious to consult the Original Records, the Bishops Letters, the Writings of the Authors of his own time, of which he often gives us an Extract in his History. He is also careful to set down exactly the Succession of Bishops, and the years in which every thing was transacted, and he describes them by the Consuls and Olympiads. His Judgment appears in the Reflections and Observations, which he makes now and then, which are very judicious and impartial. We may see in the 22d. Chap. of the 5th. Book an Example of the diligent Inquiry he had made about the Discipline of the Church. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 treats of the Dispute on what day the Feast of Easter should be celebrated, and remarks very judiciously, That there was no just reason to dispute a thing of so little Consequence with so much heat; That it was not necessary to follow the custom of the Jews; That the Apostles had no general Rule for the keeping of Festivals, but they were brought into the Church by use only; That they had left no Law concerning the time when Easter should be celebrated, and that it was only for the sake of the History that it is related, that Jesus Christ was crucified in the Feast of Unleavened Bread; That the Apostles did not trouble themselves to make any Orders about Holy-days, but their only design was to teach Faith and Vertue; That the Apostles having decreed nothing concerning the celebration of Easter, it is no wonder if the Churches did not unanimously agree about it; After he hath brought down the Quarrel from Victor to the Council of Nice, he adds some Heads about the different Ce∣remonies of the Church. He finds great Differences about the Lent-Fast. The Romans, saith he, content themselves to Fast 3 Weeks, Saturday and Sunday excepted. The Christians of ••••••yria and Achaia, as also those of Aegypt, fast 7 Weeks before Easter, and have given the Name of Lent to all that space of time. Others begin 7 Weeks before, but Fast no more than 3 Weeks, each consisting of 5 Days, leaving out 2 Fortnights in which they do not Fast at all; and yet they also call their Fast by the Name of Lent. Nor is there only a disagree∣ment about the number of Fasting-days, but also about the Abstinence it self. For some eat no living Creature, others eat nothing but Fish, others admit of Fowls, which were created out of the Waters, as it is said in Genesis. Some abstain from the Fruits of Trees and Eggs. There are some that eat nothing but Bread, others abstain from that also. Lastly, there are some who allow themselves not to eat till after 3 a Clock in the Afternoon, but they make no difficulty to eat all sorts of Meat. There are an infinite number of like Practices, differing in different Churches, of which each labours to give a Reason. There is no less difference about the days for the solemn Assemblies of the Faithful. All Churches, excepting those of Rome and Alex∣andria, celebrate the Holy Mysteries on Saturday. The People of Aegypt and Thebais have their Meetings on the same day, but they do not receive the Eucharist as the others; for after they have feasted themselves, they communicate in the Evening. At Alexandria they meet on Wednesday and Saturday to hear the Holy Scripture read, and to perform the Divine Worship, but they do not receive the Sacrament. In this Church of Alexandria likewise they choose their Singers and Readers promiscuously out of the Catechumens or Faithful. In Thessaly, if a Clergyman, who is Married, lies with his Wife after Ordination, they deprive him of his Office. In the East, the Clerks and Bishops themselves abstain from their Wives, but it is of their own Accord, and without being obliged to it by any Law; and there are many who have had Children by their Wives, while they were Bishops. It is said, That Heliodorus Bi∣shop of ••rica, who when he was young made some Amorous Books, was the Author of this Custom, which hath obtained not only in Thessaly, but also in Macedonia and Achaia. In Thessaly they baptize upon Easter-day only. At Antioch the Site of the Church is contrary to others, the Altar not being turned toward the East, but toward the West. In Thessaly and at Jerusalem, as soon as the Lamps are lighted, they betake themselves to their Prayers. At C••sarea in Cappacocia, and in the Isle of Cyprus, the Bishops and Priests at the same time inter∣pret Holy Scriptures. Lastly, it is hard to find any two Churches exactly agreeing in their Ceremonies. The Priests do not Preach at Alexandria. This Custom began in the time of Arius, who troubled the Church by his Sermons. They Fast every Saturday at Rome. The cause of these differences, and many others proceeds from the Customs established at several times by the Bishops, which being received and authorized by their Successors, have obtained the force of a Law.

It may be that Socrates is mistaken in some of these Articles, and that he hath taken the Errour of some particular for the practice of the Universal Church; but this is a sign that he was curious, and that he had made very exact Observations and Disquisitions touching the Di∣scipline of the Church. He had at first compose•• the two first▪ Books of his History upon the Credit of Rufinus, but afterwards having discovered by reading the Works of S. Athanasius, that that Historian had omitted the principal Circumstances of the Persecution, which that va∣siant Defender of Christ's Divinity had suffered, he amended the two first Books. As for the five last, he composed them as well upon the Credit of Rufinus and some other Authors, as from the Records of the Church, and the relation of those that had been Witnesses of the things, or from what he had seen himself. But all this hath not secured him from falling sometimes into very considerable ••••••its, as when he confounds Maximian with Maximin; when he assures us, That there were Bishops condemned in the Council of Nice for having refused to approve the Confession of Faith, altho it appears by a Letter of the Council clear∣ly. That there were but two, viz. The•••••• and Sec••ndus, when he attributes the three Confes∣sions of Sirmiam to the same Council, altho' they were made by three several Councils, and he hath committed some other Faults of less Consequence.

It cannot be denied but he speaks very well of the Novatians, and that he had a great kind∣ness for that Sect, for he is curious in making a Catalogue of their Bishops; he commends them, relates what they have said and done, and owns that he hath a particular esteem for them. In his Opinion Novatian is a Martyr, and the Novatians are a very Religious People▪ who have not altered the Faith, their Practices and Customs are not to be slighted, and the greatest part of Men reject them for no other reason, but because they are Lovers of a loose•• Church discipline. This is all that perswades the World that Socrates was a Novatian. Not∣withstanding this he always gives us the Name of the Church and the Orthodox; he reckons the Novatians among the Schis••naticks, l. 6. c. 20. and 23. which makes it apparent, that he was not a through Novatian, altho he had a good Opinion of their Sect. and did believe perhaps that they might be saved; being perswaded, as he was that they had preserved the ancient Discipline, and that the difference which was between them and the Orthodox. was not in Marters of Faith.

The Style of Socrates is plain and easie. He hath nothing of an Orator, and keeps himself within the bounds of a single Narration, which is not adorned with the Elegancies usual a∣mong Historians, but which hath nothing in it obscure or intricate. He produces long Quo∣tations to prove the Matters of Fact, which he relates. The same Authors who translated the History of Eusebius, have also translated Socrates and Sozomen's; for which reason it is to no purpose to repeat their Versions and Editions in this place.

SOZOMEN.

HErmias Sozomenus lived at the same time with Socrates, was of the same Profession, and undertook a Work of the same Nature. He was of a good Family, a Native of a City in * 1.97 Palestine, called Bethesia near Gaza. His Grandfather having been converted by a Miracle of Hilarion's, applied himself to the study of Holy Scripture, and conversed very much with the Monks of his own Country. Sozomen was brought up among them, and had imbibed, a very great esteem for that Order. This he plainly discovers in his History, where he gives an high commendation of a Monastick Life, and enlarges himself very much upon the Actions and Manner of living used among those Solitaries. This is almost all that is considerable, which he addeth to the History of Socrates, for he begins and ends at the same time. I say, that that's all he hath added, because I am perswaded that he wrote after Socrates. For besides that he was then a Lawyer, when he composed his History, and by consequence was younger than Socrates, who had left off that Profession, it is visible enough that he follows the Rela∣tion of Socrates, to which he adds or changes some things now and then; also he is ordinarily put after Socrates. These Additions have made his History larger, and obliged him to divide it into 9 Books.

His Style is more ••orid and elegant than Socrates's, but he is not so judicious an Author. He hath inserted some things into his History, which are not agreeable to it. He is guilty of all the same Faults, that Socrates is, and is himself fallen into more gross ones. As when he says, That Pope Julius not being able to go to the Council of Nice by reason of his ••••eat. Age, he sent Vito and Vincentius; although 'tis certain that that Council was held under Pope Sylvester. He confounds the Ordination of Gregory by the Church of Alexandria, with the Intrusion of George. He hath been very negligent in setting down the Catalogues of the Bi∣shops of the great Sees. He hath placed Romanus in the number of the Patriarchs of A••ti••c•• although he was no more than a Deacon. He makes the Popedom of Julius to last 25 years,

whereas it continued but Fifteen Years, and puts his Death after Gallus's, although it happen'd Two Years before. I omit to speak of many more Faults in this Author. His History is dedicated to Theodosius the Younger.

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 * 1.98 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 * 1.99 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 1.100? 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 1.101. 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 1.102, 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 1.103, about the Year 450 b 1.104. 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 1.105, 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 1.106; 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 1.107. 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 * 1.108. 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 * 1.109 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 * 1.110 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 * 1.111 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 1.112, 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 * 1.113, 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 * 1.114 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 1.115, as also the Treatise against the Jews, and * 1.116 the Answer to the Questions of the Persian Magi; nor have we his † 1.117 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.

ANDREW Bishop of Samosata.

ANDREW Bishop of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, was an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Frie•••• of The••d••et's, and observed al∣most the same way of De••••••ment. He was chosen by John Bishop of Antioch to confute * 1.118 S. Cyril's 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which he did with a great deal of moderation. We have yet that Work with S. Cyril's Answers. Andrew of Samosata, having seen them, he confured them by a more smart Writing * 1.119. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sinaita makes mention of this last, and recites a Frag∣ment of it in his Book, intitled, 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ The Guide, Chap. 22. There are † 1.120 9 Letters of his in the Collection of F. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by which it appears, That he condemned Rabbul••••, who had the boldness to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 accursed; That he disallowed at first S. Cyril's Letter for the Union and Peace which was made with him, but that afterwards he yielded, following the Example of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and counselled Alexander [Patriarch of Antio••h] to do the same. He was condemned in the ••••am Council of Ephesus, if we may believe Theophanes. He was dead before the Council of Chalcedon, where his Successor, called Rufinus, was present.

HELLADIUS Bishop of Tarsus, MAXIMINUS Bishop of Anazarbum, and IRENAEUS Bishop of Phoenicia.

HELLADIUS Bishop of Tarsus, the Metropolis of the upper Cilicia, was deposed in the first Council of Ephesus. S. Cyril would not suffer him to be included in the Peace, * 1.121 and he himself was as averse to it. He resisted a long time, but at last he yielded. He hath * 1.122 7 Letters in 〈◊〉〈◊〉's Collection.

Maximinus, Bishop of A••••zal••••••, Metropolitan of the lower Cilicia, he stood out longer than Helladius; but at last seeing himself moles••ed with the Emperor's Order•• he followed his Example, he and all the Bishops of his Province. We have the Synodal Letters which he wrote pro and con, with three or four other Letters upon the same Subject in 〈◊〉〈◊〉's Collection.

Count Irenaeus, who was present at the Council of Ephesus in the place of the Emperour in ••••ality of a Commissioner, was afterward chosen Bishop of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Bishops of that Province; and ordain'd by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in 444. He did not enjoy that Bishoprick long▪ being de∣posed in 448. by the Emperour's Co••••and. We have made an Extract of Theodo••et's Let∣ter, where he speaks of the defects of his Ordination; and of another Letter, wherein that Father exhor•••• him to own▪ That the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, but all in vain. He was too close linked to the D••••trine of Nest••rius to change. This firm adherence appears by the Work which he intitled▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ The Tragedy in which he hath written strongly in his own Defence and condemned noy only S. Cyril and the Aegyptians, but also John Bishop of Antioch, and all the Bishops of the East, who had joined in the Peace, commending none but those, who through unheard of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, remain'd in a separation from the Church. We have already observed▪ That 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath ••ublished a Collection of that ancient Author, who hath translated and copied a part of the Letters, which he had gathered in that Work▪ and some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪

S. LEO.

ST. Leo a 1.123, after he had gotten himself Repute among the Clergy of Rome b 1.124, under the Pontificate of S. Coelestine and S. Sixtus, in quality of an Arch-deacon, was chosen * 1.125 Bishop of Rome after the death of the latter c 1.126, which happened Apr. 1. in the year 440. He was sent into France to procure a reconciliation between Aetius and Albinus [two chief Cap∣tains of the Roman Army.] While he was there, Deputies were sent from Rome to him, to carry him the News of his Election, and to hasten his return to Rome where he was ordain'd 40 days after the death of his Predecessor. He maintain'd his Dignity with so much Splendor, Vigilance and Authority, that he rendred himself more famous in the Church than any of the Popes which had been before him, even from S. Peter. He not only had a special care of the Church of Rome, and those Churches which were subject to his Metropolis, but he ex∣tended his Pastoral Vigilance over all the Churches of the East and West. He maintain'd the ancient Doctrine, opposed Heresies, upheld the Ecclesiastical Discipline, renewed and con∣firmed the ancient Canons, enlarged the Grandeur and Authority of his See, and manfully defended the Rights of it. There was no Affair almost transacted in the Church in the time of his Pontificate, in which he had not a great share. We do not mention them here, because his Letters teach us them in particular. He died in the 21st. year of his Prelacy, in the year 461. d 1.127.

This Pope is deservedly ranked among the Fathers of the Church, because tho' we have no great Treatises under his Name, his Sermons and Letters are very useful Works. We will be∣gin to make the Extract of his Letters, which contain a great number of very important Points of Doctrine, History, Morality and Discipline.

But before we enter upon the particular discussion of the Letters, it is convenient to exa∣mine the Conjecture of a Modern Critick, who asserts, That the Letters attributed to S. Leo are the Work of S. Prosper. This Conjecture is principally upheld by the Testimony of Gen∣nadius, who speaking of S. Prosper, saith, Epistolae quo{que} Papae Leonis adversus Eutychem de vera Christi Incarnatione, ad diversos datae, & ab ipso dictatae dicuntur aut creduntur. The Epistles also of Pope Leo against Eutyches, written to several Persons, about the Incarnation of Christ, are said or believed to be dictated or published by him. These words are found exactly in Mar∣cellinus's Chronicon in the Consulship of Vivian and Foelix; and 'tis from hence, that Ado Vi∣ennensis hath taken that Passage, as Honorius Augustodunensis and Trithemius have taken it from Gennadius. But Ado gives S. Prosper the Title of a Secretary Notarius to S. Leo. 'Tis from the Testimonies of these Authors that M. Anthelmi takes the boldness to assert this Paradox, That all the Letters of S. Leo were written by S. Prosper. For confirmation, he compares the Letter of S. Leo to Flavian, and that directed to the Bishop of Aquileja, with some places of S. Prosper's Works, and thinks that he finds an entire conformity of Style in them. He adds, That S. Jerom was Secretary to Pope Damasus, and that he made Answer to such as consulted any thing of him in the name of that Pope. And so S. Gregory, when he was a Deacon, was Secretary to Pelagius II. and it is credible, that all the Popes wrote nothing almost themselves, but had Secretaries to write for them. These are the Conjectures upon which M. Anthelmi grounds himself, but they are too weak to prove what he asserts.

For first of all, the whole frame of this Argument is supported by a meer Hear-say, related by Gennadius, who was not himself really of that Opinion; for speaking before of Pope Leo, chap. 70. he attributes to him, in express Terms, the Letter to Flavian, and says nothing of his other Works, insomuch, that he could not have put him in the number of Ecclesiastical Writers, but because he thought this Letter was of his Writing. Now when an Author speak's affirmatively in one place, and in another reports it upon Hear-say only, his Judgment is to be gathered from the place, where he speaks of his own Head, and not from that where∣in he speaks according to the common Opinion.

Secondly, 'Tis not certain that these words in chap. 84. Epistolae quoque Leonis, &c. The Epistles likewise of S. Leo, &c. are Gennadius's: But on the contrary, 'tis probable, that they have been added. To be convinced of this, we need but cast our Eyes upon chap. 84. and we may soon see what is Gennadius's, and what••is added. For after that Gennadius hath spoken of the Works of S. Prosper in such a manner as made it evident, That he did not approve what he had written about Grace, some Body hath added; This Prosper hath been the De∣fender of S. Austin's Books als•• against the Hereticks, who were Enemies to the Grace of Jesus Christ. This is plainly an Addition to the Text of Gennadius. These words which are now in Question follow this Addition, and are a part of it; for, 1. If they were Gennadius's, they would be joined to his Text, and would not follow this Addition. 2. The way in which this Phrase is expressed, Epistolae quoque Leon••s &c. shews, That it hath a relation to the preceed∣ing Addition, and that it hath nothing to do with the Text of Gennadius. It begins with these words, Epistolae quoque. The word qu••q•••• referrs to the preceeding Addition, Hic etiam Prosper, and cannot be joined with the Genuine Text, Quae enim vere Cassiani & Prosperi de gratia & libero arbitrio sententiae fu••runt, i•• aliquibus contrariae sibi inveniuntur. The Opi∣nions of Cassian and Prosper of Grace and Free-will, are contrary the one to the other in some things. Who would say after this, The Epistles of S. Leo also, &c? It is then certain, That this last Phrase hath relation to the Precedent, where he speaks with dislike of the Semi-Pela∣gians. So that it is not certainly Gennadius's; 'tis an Addition no Man can doubt. And what can we say of the other?

But whence comes this Addition? Whence was it taken? It is no hard Matter to guess, since the same words are to be found in Marcellinus's Chronicon. From hence some Person took them to add them here to the Text of Gennadius, chap. 84. One of these two must be, Either that Marcellinus hath taken this place from Gennadius, or some Body hath taken this Passage out of Marcellinus to add it to the Text of Gennadius. The first is very unlikely: Marcellinus doth not use to copy out Gennadius. We must then hold the latter, and so much the rather, because there are other Conjectures to prove, That this Passage is an Addition to the Text of Gennadius, and there is nothing to prove, That it hath been added to Marcellinus.

This being so, all the proofs of M. Anthelmi are resolved into a common Rumour which was current in the time of Marcellinus, who lived an Hundred Years after Leo. For as for Ado, 'tis visible enough, That he hath taken all he says from Marcellinus; and besides, an Author of the 9th. Age is of no great Authority. And the same I say of Honorius of Augusto∣douum, and Trithemius, who have copied the Addition, which had been made to chap. 84. out of Gennadius's Book.

There is likewise very great probability, That the Title of Secretary or Notary, which Ado hath given to Prosper, is grounded upon nothing but what he had read in Marcellinus's Chronicon. For from whence should he know, that S. Prosper had the Title? But if it were certain, That he had the quality of Notarius in the time of S. Leo, it doth not follow that he made the Letters of that Pope. The Notaries, in the time of S. Leo, were not those who composed the Letters, but those who kept them, carried them, published them, and kept the Registers of the Ecclesiastical Affairs. We read, in the 25th. Epistle of S. Leo, That Dulcitius the Notary, was sent to the 2d. Council of Ephesus, to write the Acts of it. Dionysius, who was sent to Constantinople to carry the Letters of S. Leo, Ep. 46. is called, Romanae Ecclesiae Notarius. Tiburtius, Secretary of the Church of Rome, signed the Letter to Flavian, under that Title. Tiburtius Notarius, &c. I Tiburtius, the Notary, by the Command of my Re∣verend Lord the Pope have published. These were the Offices of a Notary. Also, altho' it were certain, That S. Prosper was a Notary of the Church of Rome, it would not follow, That he hath composed the Letters of S. Leo. And, likewise, if we follow the Correction, That M. the Abbot Anthelmi hath made in the Chronicon of Ado, by 2 MSS. in M. Colbert's Library; this Author doth not say, That S. Prosper, as he was a Notary, hath written the Letters of S. Leo, but only that he set them out, a quo editae creduntur.

The Example of the Office of S. Jerom with Pope Damasus, doth not prove, That S. Pro∣sper hath performed the same Office with S. Leo. There have been Popes, who have written for themselves; there are others, who have made use of the help of others, not being of suf∣ficient Abilities to write. For Example, Pelagius II. had need of the assistance of S. Gregory; but who will say, That S. Gregory, being made Bishop, used another to write his Letters?

Nor is there any conformity of Stile between the Letters of S. Leo and the Works of S. Prosper, as is pretended by M. Abbot Anthelmi, but this is that in which he least of all agrees with him. The Comparisons and Paral••els which he makes, shew indeed, That they agree in some Terms, which all that treat of these Matters do commonly use, and which are taken from S. Austin in a Thousand places. But this will never for all that perswade them, who have any Judgment, That the Style of S. Leo's and S. Prosper's Writings, are the same. And let any Man read but a little of each, and he will find a considerable difference, and be convinced, That S. Leo had a loftiness of Expression, which S. Prosper was not able to attain, and a readiness in Writing and Speaking, which raised him above the help of a Secretary. Lastly, The Style of his Letters is so like that of his Sermons, that it cannot be doubted but that they are the same Authors. Now who is there, even at this day, that is so inconsiderate as to say, That S. Leo's Sermons are not his? It is true, That M. Abbot Anthelmi also

thinks, That S. Prosper had an hand in them; but this is another Paradox more extraordinary than the former, and is not supported by the Testimony of any Author, and which he cannot make good, as we shall shew afterwards. But let us return to S. Leo's Letters, and follow the Order of Time, according to which they are disposed by F. Quesnct.

The First is directed to the Bishops of Mauritania Casariensis, which was probably writ∣ten before Gonsericus, King of the Vandals, had conquered that Province, which happened after the Death of Valentinian, who died in 455 a 1.128. This Letter contains Directions how to reform the Disorders which were committed in Africa, in the Ordination of Bishops. Bishop ••o••en∣tius, whom S. Leo had sent into Africa to get Information of it, and to let him know if it were true that the Bishopricks there were so ill bestowed, had given him an Account, That for the most part the Churches were governed by Persons unworthy of the Name of a Bishop; that they were raised to that Dignity either by Bribery or popular Faction. S. Leo immedi∣ately wrote to them, as well to testifie his own Grief, which he had for their Disorders, as to prescribe them Means to reform them. First, he shews, That 'tis prejudicial to the People's Salvation, to place over them Pastors unworthy of their Office, and that in doing it they were so far from comforting them, that they made their Case more dangerous. He Superadds, That though he found some who were Ordained by Sedition or Bribery, worthy of their Office, yet the Example was of ill Consequence, and that it is very improbable that that should end well which had a bad Beginning.

He observes in the Second Article, That if they are obliged to take care, that they do not mistake in the Election of all, that are admitted into the Clergy, that nothing be done in the Church of God, which is not in Order, they are much more obliged to chuse Persons of Worth to rule over others. Upon this occasion he quotes a Text of S. Paul's, wherein he gives Timothy charge to lay Hands suddenly on no Man: What is it, saith he, to lay hands sud∣denly on no Man, but to conferr Priests Orders upon Persons whose Worth we are ignorant of, before they are of fit Age; before we have had Time to try them; before they have ap∣proved themselves fit by their Industry, and have given some Signs of their Knowledge and Experience?

After these general Rules he speaks particularly of the Conditions necessary for entring into Holy Orders. The First is, not to have above One Wife, and she not to be a Widow, The Second, to have passed all the Inferior Orders, and to have exercised them for some Time. After he hath proved the Necessity of these two Conditions in the Third and Fourth Articles, he commands, in the Fifth, the Bishops to whom he wrote to deprive them of their Bishoprick, who were found to have had Two Wives, or had married a Widow: But as to them whose Ordination was not Faulty, but upon this account, because they were made Bishops immediately of Laicks, he permits them to keep their Bishopricks, telling them, That he did it only by a kind of Indulgence, and without prejudicing the Holy See, the Decrees of his Predecessors, or his own, by which it is forbidden to promote any Person to the First, Second or Third Degree of the Clorgy, who have not arrived at these Dignities by the ordinary Ways, declaring to them, that for the future he intended that those Rules should be strictly observed.

He comes at last to the Affairs, in which he was personally concerned: A Novatian Bishop, called Donatus, had been converted with all his People. S. Leo suffered him to keep his Bishoprick, but required him to send a Profession of his Faith to him; in which he condemns the Errors of the Novatians, and professes the Faith of the Church. He exacted the same thing of Maximus, who had been before a Donatist, and had after been made a Bishop of a Layman. As to Aggarus and Tiberianus, who had been ordained Bishops, being before but mere Laymen, and that with a great Uproar, he enjoyned the Bishops of Africk to inform themselves ex••ctly of all that had passed at their Ordination, and to write to him of it. This is what respects the Ordination of Bishops.

He speaks, in the Eighth Article of the Virgins who had been deflower'd by the Barbarians, and advises them, not to compare themselves with those that had yet their Virginity, because▪

although they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Sin, yet they ought to bewall the Loss they had suffered. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Bishops, at l••st to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to his Advice, and observe the Holy 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

The Second Article, in the ordinary Editions, is not put in this Edition, because it is not to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the best Manuscripts and hath no Connexion with the precedent Article, inso∣much that this is a Supposititious Passage, which is none of S. L••••'s f 1.129, or if it be his, 'tis a Fragment of some other Letter unfitly in••erted in this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 It contains a Prohibition of Ordain∣ing Bishops in the Villages or Castles, and an Advertisement to the Virgins that had been defiled by the Barbarians, That they ought not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reckon themselves, according to the Judg∣ment of the Author of this Fragment, neither among the Widows nor Virgins. Lastly, He there in speaks of a Bishop of Africk, called Lupicinus, who had been excommunicated in Africk notwithstanding the Appeal which he had made to Rome, and in whose Place they had ordained another Bishop, before the Pope had given Judgment. This shews, that the Bishops of Africk retained their Liberty about Appeals for a long time, and did not recede from their Rights in the least, when this Letter was written by S. Leo, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by some other Pope.

The Second Letter is written about the Year 442 g 1.130, to Rustieus Bishop of Nar••••nne. This Bishop se•••••• his Archde••con Her••••es to S. Leo, to p••••pose several Questions to him touching Discipline, and communicate to him his Proceedings against Two Priests, who were under his Jurisdiction, who had withdrawn themselves before their Judgment was pronounced: S. Leo leaves it to his Discretion to consure them as he thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and exhorts him only to do what he was able to recal them again to the good way by treating them with Gentleness. He afterward diverts him from his Purpose to leave his Bishoprick, and pass the remaining part of his Life in a Retreat. At last he answers several Questions, which that Bishop had put to him. I shall in this Place relate the Answers of this Pope.

In the First Place he declares, That they who have not been either chosen by the Clergy, or desired by the People, not ordain'd by the Bishops of the Province, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the Consent of the Metropolitan, may not be accounted Bishops, and that they ought not to be allowed the Dignity, which they have not received: Nevertheless, if he finds that these false Bishops have Ordain'd Clerks in the Churches by the consent of such as 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that is to say the Bishops of these Churches, their Ordination may be approvid of, upon condition that they continue in these Churches; but ought to be looked upon as Null, if they have not been fixed in one Church not approved by a Lawful Authority.

In the second he says, That it is not allowable to put a Priest or a Deacon to do publick Penance, although he desires it and if he find himself guilty of any Crime, he ought to re∣tire himself, and do Penance in pri••a••e. This Rule of S. Leo is contrary to the Antient Dis∣cipline of many Churches, and to the Canons of the First Council of Orange, and the Se∣cond of A••les.

In the Third, He orders. That the Ministers of the Altar, That is, the Deacons, and Sub-deacons, as it appears by his Letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica, should be subject to the Law of Continence, as well as the Bishops and Priests. He adds, That being Laicks or Readers

they may be married and have Children, but being arrived at the Sacred Ministry of the Altars, 'tis not to be permitted them; That their Marriage ought to be changed from Carnal to Spiritual, that so they may neither forsake their Wives, nor have any Carnal Knowledge of them. S. Leo is the first who hath extended the Law of Celebacy to Sub-Deacons. His Pre∣d••••••ssors S. Siricius and S. Innocent, speak of none but Deacons. The Usage of the Church of France was contrary in the very Time of S. Leo, as it appears by the Canons of the First Council of Orange, the Second of Arles and Anjou, where only Deacons were obliged to Continence; for the Decnee of the Council of Orange was only for the future. It cost a great deal of Trouble to bring the Deacons to a Submission to that Law, seeing that the Bishops were forced to renew it often. It was afterwards enlarged to the Sub-Deacons in some Churches, as appears by the Councils of Venice and Agatha, but that Discipline was not general in all Churches of France, as we learn by the Letter of Lupus of Troyes [Tricassinus] and Euphronius of Autun▪ [Augustodunensis] ••o Thalasius Bishop of Anjou.

In the Fourth he declares, That a Clergyman, who gives his Daughter in Marriage to one that hath a Concubine, ought not to be treated as if he had given her to a Person already married, because Concubines cannot be counted lawful Wives, nor the familiar Commerce with them Marriage; at least, they are not free, endowed nor joyned together by publick Marriage.

In the Fifth he saith, That the Daughters of those Parents, who have married them to Persons that have Concubines, do not sin in dwelling with those to whom they are married.

In the Sixth, That it is not the Sin of Adultery, but a vertuous Action, for a Man to cast off his Concubine, that he may live only with his Wife. The Concubines, which are spoken of in this Place, are Slaves, with whom Men lived as with their Wives, without having any Commerce with others, although they were not solemnly married to them.

In the Seventh he saith, That they are much to be blamed for their Negligence, I who attend Dying Persons, to require Repentance of them, but do not insist upon it, when they are returned to Health again; That they ought not to give over wholly their Design, but bring them by frequent Exhortations to perform that which Necessity obliged them to require; because we ought to despair of no Man so long as he is in this World, and it often happens that Men do that in their riper Age which they have deferr'd through Distrust.

In the Eighth, That those that die after they have undergone their Penance, with∣out being reconciled, ought to be left to the Judgment of God, and no signs of Communion be allowed them. This Practice was contrary to that of the African, French and Spanish Churches.

In the Ninth he speaks of those who having demanded Penance, when Afflictions lay upon them, would not undergo it when they were mitigated. He saith, That it may be this Dis∣p••sition doth not proceed from a Contempt of Repentance, but from a fear of Sinning, and that it must not be deny'd them, if they request it a second Time.

In the Tenth he saith, That a Penitent ought not to go to Law before the S••cular Judges, but before the Ecclesiastical only, because he ought to abstain from such Things as are permitted.

In the Eleventh he saith, That although it is nothing but the Nature of Gain that excuseth o•• condemneth Trading, yet it is most convenient for a Penitent wholly to forbear it, because it is hard to avoid Sin in Commerce, either on the part of the Seller, or on the part of the Buyer.

In the Twelfth he observes, That it is contrary to the Laws of the Church, to become a Soldier after a Man hath done Penance.

In the Thirteenth he says, That he could wish that those who have done Penance when they were Boys, would not marry; yet he excuses young Men who do it, when it is to avoid Incontinency.

In the Fourteenth he orders, That the Monks, who have married, or listed themselves for Soldiers, should be made to do Penance, because they cannot leave that Profession without Sin, when they have once embraced it, but are obliged to perform their Vows.

In the Fifteenth he condemns the Virgins, who married after they had voluntarily put on the Habit of Virgins, and imbraced Virginity, although they were not yet consecrated.

In the Sixteenth and Seventeenth he affirms, That they must be baptized anew who have not any Proof that they have been already baptized, although they remember that they have been heretofore in the Church.

In the Eighteenth he saith, That it is sufficient to lay Hands upon, and call upon the Holy Spirit, over those that do remember that they have been baptized, but know not in what Sect.

In the Nineteenth, and Last, he saith, That those Infants, who after Baptism have Lived among the Heathen, ought to be put to publick Penance, if they have worshipped Idols, or committed Sins; but it is sufficient to purge them by Imposition of Hands, and Fasting▪ be∣fore

〈…〉〈…〉

It 〈…〉〈…〉 of these Questions ha••e been determi•••••• by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Presid••••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop•• of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who was evil aff••cted to that Bishop, ••••d rather ••ave 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of Rome, than to the Councils of his Province; but th••se Decisions of S. Leo 〈…〉〈…〉 the Custom•• of the Church of France, as we have ••••••served, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of those Councils.

The Third Letter of S. Leo is directed to the Bishops of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and other Pro••••nces, Da••ed October the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Year 443. S. Leo Observes in the beginning of this Letter, That as the Order of the Churches was a Joy to him, so he was troubled when any thing was done contrary to the Canons and Discipline of the Church. He adds, That if the Bishops did not restrain the disorders with all possible diligence, since they are appointed to watch 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Fl••ck of Jesus Christ, they are inexcusable; t•• suffer, that the Body of the Church, which they ought to keep in Purity, should be de••••••ed and corrupted with Dissentions, is a great 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 annex••s to this Ad•…•…ion these following Ca∣nons.

In the First he forbids, That such Persons be not received into the Clergy, as are Sla••es, as also Farmers, o•• Su•…•…s, or any other, who depend in any manner soever upon Masters, at least, that th••se upon whom they depend, do not require it: He gives Two Reasons for this Prohibition; The First, Because the Sacred Ministry is as it were made Contemptible by such sole of Persons; And the Second is, Because it doth an Injury to their Mistresses. Pope 〈◊〉〈◊〉 allows the contrary, in respect of the Farmers, in his Ninth Epistle.

In the Second Ca••••n he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Ordinations of Persons, that have been twice Mar∣ried, and commands, by virtue of his Apo••••••lical Authorities, that they be hindred from doing the Offices of their Ministry, reserving to himself the Cognizance of the Cause of such as bring some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in; and that no Man might pretend Ignorance ▪altho▪ 'tis not sufferable for a Bishop to be I•…•…ant of what is ordered by the Canons) he tells them, He had sent this Letter by Three Bishops, which may be a reason to think, that it was written in a Sy∣nod.

The Third and Fourth Canons are against Usurers. These are the first, which forbid Usu∣ry 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lay▪Men. In the last Canon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 declares, That those that will not Obey these Decrees, shall be deprived of their Dignities, and they that will not Conform to the Discipline of the Church of Rome, shall have no part in her Communion. Lastly, He commands them to keep the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Ordinances of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but especially of Pope Innocent. Those, saith he, which have been pr••••••lged about the Order of the Church, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dis••ipline. Qu•• de Ecclesiasticis ordinibus, & Canonum promulgata sunt disciplin••s. For so it ought to be read, as it is in the MSS. and no•• Ordi••••••••, as it is in some Editions. Hinoma••us reads promulgata, and m••th Amplifies this passage in Opus••••••••, 33. Ch. 10. This Letter was sent to the Bishops of It al subject to the Church of Rome, as their Me••••opolis, and therefore 'tis no wonder if S. Leo speaks to them with so much Authority.

The Fourth Letter to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of Thessalonica, is taken out of the Acts of the Council of Rome, under 〈◊〉〈◊〉 II, which is to be found in H••••••••••nius's Collection. In this Letter S. Leo makes Anastasius his Deputy in Illyria, imitating therein the Example of S••••••∣cius, who had first granted that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and he exhorts him to imitate his Predeces∣sor, and ••o have a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Churches which he committed to his charge. Above all, he recommends to him, That he cause the Canons about the Ordination of Bishops to be ob∣served, and that he oppose the Election of Persons who have been Twice Married, especially when they have Married the first Wife before Baptism. He would not have him suffer the Metropolitans of Illyria to Ordain any Bishop without his appr••••ation, nor themselves to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but by himself▪ He charges the Bishops to come to the Synods which he shall call, to Judge in common what concerns the Discipline of the Church; and de••••res him, That if there happen any cause of great consequence which they could not determine, he would give him an account of it, that the Holy See might decide it according to the Ancient Custom▪ Whereupon he Observes, That he entrusted him with his Authority, in such manner neverthe∣less, as that he reserved to himself those Causes which could not be ended in the Province, or in which there should be an Appeal to the Holy See. He Admonishes Anastasius to make known all these Orders to all the Bishops, that they may have no ground of Excuse, if they did not put them in practice, and that he had written to the Metropolitans, that they ought to acknowledge him the Deputy of the Holy See. In the conclusion, he reproves the fault of some Bishops, who Ordain'd Priests and Deacons upon other Days than Sundays, an Usage, which he says, was contrary to the Canons and Tradition of the Fathers. This Letter is Dated January the 11th, 444.

The Fifth Letter, which is directed to the Metropolitans of I••••yrin, is that which he men∣tions in the foregoing. S. Leo Exhorts them to take care that the Canons be not broken, and tells them, That he had made Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, his Deputy, that they might Obey him in those things which concern the Discipline of the Church. He sends them at the same time some of the Rules which he wrote in the foregoing Letter, and repeats them in this.

The Sixth Letter is superscribed to a Bishop of Aquilcia, his Name is not found in any MSS. nor in the more Ancient Editions. In the latter Editions the Name of Nicetas is put before it, without any other reason, but only, because there is another Letter of S. Leo's that bears the Title of Nicetas Bishop of Aquileia. But since there is also one to Januarius Bishop of the same See, there is nothing that can determine to which of these Two this Letter be∣longs, but only the time when it was written. That which is directed to Nicetas bears Date in the Year 458, and that to Januarius in 447. This of which we are now speaking is not far from 447, for S. Leo therein speaks against the Pelagians, whom he opposed in the begin∣ning of his Pontificate; at the same time, when he attacked the Manichees, as the Author of the Book of Predictions and Promises attributed to S. Prosper, shews in Chap. 6. Now it is certain, that it was in 444, that he set upon the Manichees. And consequently it must be to Januarius, and not Nicetas, to whom this Letter was written. In it S. Leo tells film, That he had heard, by the relation of Septimius, that some Priests, Deacons, and other Ecclesiasti∣cal Persons, who had been engaged in the Heresie of Pelagius, or Coelestius, had been admit∣ted to the Communion of the Church in their Province, without being required to condemn their Error expresly. Insomuch, that while the Shepherds slept, the Wolves have entred into the Fold of Jesus Christ, without laying aside their Cruel Disposition. That they had like∣wise done a thing which the Canons and Constitutions of the Church do not allow the most Innocent, in leaving the Church, where they had been admitted Clerks, to go to other Churches. That their design was by this means to corrupt many Churches, by hiding the He∣resie, with which they were infected, under the shew of Communion to which they had been received, without being obliged to any Profession of Faith. To remedy this disorder, he en∣joins the Bishop to whom he wrote, To call a Synod, and to compel all his Clergy to Con∣demn openly the Authors of their Heresie, and to make a Confession in writing, That they do firmly hold all the Synodical Decrees made for the Extirpation of that Heresie, and confirmed by the Authority of the Apostolick See. He adds, That great care ought to be had, that they make use of no obscure, or ambiguous Terms, because he knows them to be so deceitful, that if they can avoid the Condemning any Branch of their Errors by that means, they will put themselves under any disguise. That One of their principal Artifices is, when they pre∣tend to condemn all their Doctrines, and renounce them sincerely, to slide in this pernicious Maxim, That Grace is given according to Deserts. That that Opinion is contrary to the Apo∣stles Doctrine, who Teaches us, That Grace, which is not given without Merit, is not Grace, and that the disposition to Good-works is also an effect of the Grace of Jesus Christ, which is the beginning of Righteousness, the Source and Original of our Merits. That when they say on the contrary, that Natural Industry must go before it, their design is to insinuate by it, that our Nature hath not been impaired by Original Sin. Then he Exhorts Januarius to be∣ware, least his People raise new Scandals by obliging them to purge themselves from all man∣ner of suspicion, upon pain of being driven out of the Church. He Admonishes him also about the end, That he should not suffer the Priests, Deacons, or other of the Clergy, to pass from one Church to another at their own pleasure, but force them to continue in that Church wherein they have been once ordain'd. Lastly, He discovers to him the Obligation that all Bishops are under, to see that the Canons be observed, because if they do not do it, they keep up the Disorders of their Inferiors by their Gentleness, and increase the Evil by not using the Remedies sufficient to cure them.

The following Letter to Septimius Bishop of Altinum, (now Torzello) a City of the Patri∣archate of Venice, is upon the same subject with the former, and contains the same things in short. This, and the Fourteenth to Januarius, are written much about the same time, but this applies to the Pelagians in particular, what is said in the Fourteenth in general against Hereticks and Schismaticks, that they ought not to be received, till they have Abjured their Errors, and Condemned the Authors of them. Besides this, the Letter to Septimius doth only repeat what had been said in the First Letter to Januarius concerning those Clerks, who leave their Church to go to another; whereas in the Fourteenth he speaks nothing of this Change, but he Orders, That those Clerks who are Converted, ought to look upon it as a great favour, that they are allowed to continue in the Clergy in which they are, provided, that they have not been Baptized Twice, and they may not hope to be raised to any higher Dignity. The Seventh hath no Date, the Fourteenth is Dated December the 29th, or June the 24th, Anno 447. It was Intitled to Julian in the vulgar Editions. But Dionysius Minor, Cresconius, Hinc∣marus, and all the MSS. carry the Name of Januarius Bishop of Aquileia. There are Three other Letters which bear the Name of S. Leo, very like for the subject. The First and Se∣cond, that is to say, the Sixth and Seventh, contain nothing but the same thing exactly, but the one is a great deal longer than the other. The Seventh and Fourteenth are not so like in the subject, but they are much more so in the terms, or rather they are the same thing, a few Lines excepted. Which made F. Norris believe, That they were really Two Copies of the same Letter sent to Two different Bishops. But that Conjecture doth not seem possible to be defended; for besides, that the sence of the last part of these Two Letters is wholly different, it cannot be of the Pelagians of whom he speaks in the latter, but in general of all Hereticks and Schismaticks, and particularly of the Donatists, who caused themselves to be Rebaptized. It cannot then be said, that these Two Letters are Two Copies of the same Letter, they are

certainly Two different 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ ••or is it likely that S. L••••▪ who had so great a facility of Writing▪ ••••••uld be ••••••ught so 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as I may say, as to Copy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his own Writings himself, Word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Word, ••••d to follow the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of one of his Letters to Write another to a di∣stinct Person upon a d••fferent subject? This is not at all Credible. 'Tis more probable, That one of these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Letters i•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but which of the Two is disputable. Father Qu••s••••l thinks 'tis the Seventh, and his Adversary 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that it is the Fourteenth. Let us consider their Reasons.

F. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proves, That the 14th. is Authentick, by the Testimony of Dionysius Exiguus and Cresconius, who have inserted it in their Collections of Hincmarus who hath cited this Letter, and by the Authority of the more Ancient MSS. On the contrary, he rejects the 7th. which is not in the Ancient Collections, but in Isidore's only, by these Conjectures: The most valid is taken from this Term, Metropolitan of the Province of Venice, which is to be found in this Letter, which is not in the 14th. We shall never find, says he, That the Me∣tropolitan of the Province of Venice was ever spoken of, before the City of Venice was made an Episcopal See, and what Sence can that Expression have, when Venice was not the Metro∣polis of any Province, and the Province it self was not called Venice, but Istria? The Bishop of Aquileia was never called Metropolitan of the Province of Venice, but of the Province of Istria, and the Bishops of that Country, Bishops of Istria, and not of the Venetian Province. Photius, in the 54th. Code of his Bibliotheca, says well, That Septimius had written to S. Leo against the Heresie of the Nestorians (he means of the Pelagians, for they were known in the East under the name of the Nestorians only) who would exalt themselves; but he says not That S. Leo had sent a Letter to Septimius.

The Adversary of F. Quesnel doth not oppose the Proofs, by which the 14th. Letter is up∣held, but he makes it his Business to relate such Conjectures as prove it Supposititious, and Answers to those which F. Quesnel hath brought against the 7th. He says then, against the 14th. 1. That the Conclusion is not answerable to the beginning; That it is an unshapen Monster; for in the beginning S. Leo commends the Zeal of the Person to whom he writes, and at the end threatens him, if he neglects to have his Decrees put in practice. 2. That this Conclusion is taken word for word out of the 6th. Letter of S. Leo to the same Januarius; That nevertheless it is all that is different almost in this Letter from that which is directed to Septimius. Now what prohability is there, That S. Leo should use the same Conclusion in two distinct Letters written to the same Person. 3. It is probable, That the Terms, which are in the 14th▪ Letter and not in the 7th. have been added. 4. That the 6th. Letter to Januarius confirms the 7th. It is certain, That Septimius had written to S. Leo, concerning the Pela∣gians, which is also confirmed by the Testimony of Photius. There is then a greater proba∣bility, That the Letter, which is written to him upon that Subject, is Genuine, than another Letter to Januarius concerning the Donatists. For when we have two Writings, one of which is certainly forged, and we find one to have relation to the Circumstances of the History of the time, and the other none at all; we ought to uphold the former rather than the latter.

These are the Arguments which M. the Abbot of Anthelmi brings against the 14th. Letter. Next he answers to those which F. Quesnel hath offered against the 7th. Letter, since there is none but that which respects the Metropolitan of Venice, which appeared strong to us; we will not stay to discuss the other. M. Abbot Anthelmi is sensible of the force of it. And, first, he endeavours to elude it, by saying, That among the Records of the Ancients, the Names of Venice and Istria are to be found. Whereupon he quotes two Inscriptions, and the 25th. Letter of S. Ambrose to the Church of Vercellae, wherein he speaks of the Provinces of Liguria, Ae••ilia and Venice. But distrusting this first Answer, he says, That the Name of Venice, in this Letter, is evidently added or changed for Istria. And he endeavours to dis∣cover after what manner this change might be made, but he doth not prove it by the Autho∣rity of any MSS. that it hath been done; yet this is all that he hath brought to prove it. This is what he saith on both sides concerning the Authentickness of these two Letters. Al∣tho' it doth not belong to me to judge between two Persons, so judicious as these two Criticks are, nevertheless I cannot but give my Opinion concerning these Letters, yet upon this con∣dition, That it be not reckoned of any great Worth.

The Authority of the Collections of Dionysius Exiguus and Cresconius, seem to me to prove the Authentickness of the 14th. Letter, to which 'tis hard not to yield assent. It is true, we have rejected some parts of the first Letter, altho' they are in the Collection of Dionysius Exiguus. But 'tis because we had a lawful Reason to doubt, whether they were there heretofore, and because Cresconius had not put them in his Collection, and because they are not to be found in the Ancient MSS. and because they are evidently added. It is certain, That Dionysius hath recited that Letter, Cresconius hath followed him, the MSS. agree, and there is nothing that proves the Letter Supposititious, for the Conjectures of M. Abbot Anthelmi do not seem strong enough.

The first is grounded upon this Supposition, That the last words of that Letter are directly applied to Januarius, but this is not altogether so, for they may as well relate to other Bi∣shops. Furthermore, these words are not so sharp, but S. Leo might make use of them to a∣waken and encrease the Zeal of the Bishop to whom he wrote.

The 2d. is not at all more concluding. It is not very unusual for the same Man to write 〈◊〉〈◊〉 different Letters after the same manner, and to repeat the same sentence in two different ••••aces. S. Le••'s Letters afford us many Examples of it. Read but the ••••th. and 13••th. Let∣•…•…, and you will find there 6 or 7 Chapters transcribed out of the one into the other▪ Be∣sides, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conclusion of these two Letters is perhaps a form of Threatning which th•• Pop••s ordinarily used. But however that be, it is not less •…•…able to S. L••••, to take this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out of his 6th. Letter, than to Pope Adrian 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to take the whole 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chapter of this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Letter, and inse•••• it into his 97th. Letter.

The third is the very point about which all the Contest is. F. Que•…•… holds, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 i•• over and above in the 14th. Letter is no Addition but what comes naturally in with the Text; and that it is the 17th. Letter which is defective. Let the Readeer judge. The sence of the 2d. part is quite different. The Order, which is found in the 14th. Letter, by which it is forhidden to promote converted Clergy men to any higher degree, is certainly ancient 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bears a mark of Veneration, and is expressed in Terms suitable to S. Leo. This is in my Judgment, of great weight.

The last Conjecture of M. Abbot Anthelmi, al••••o' he thinks it able to determine the Poi•••• yet doth not seem to me to be altogether so. The Forgers of Writings do often take occasion to counterfeit Books from some circumstance of Chronology. They think not upon new No∣tions, nor of Affairs very lately transacted, but they ordinarily derive them from the Anc••en••••. It was much easier for an Imposter to forge a Letter of S. Leo to Septimius, by taking the History of the 6th. Letter, and the Terms of the 14th. than to produce one wholly from his own Fancy.

The Conjectures which F. Quesnel hath alledged against the Letter to Septimius, are not al∣together decisive; but if we must necessarily assert, That one of the two Letters is forged, and the other genuine, I shall readily conclude in favour of the 14th. And must, withal, ac∣knowledge, That the Objection taken from these words, Ad Metropolitanum Episco•…•… Venetiae, is almost unanswerable; a like Example cannot be produced. The word Venetia, in the singular Number, is no where to be found, nor Provincia Venetiae, but Li∣g•…•…, Aemiliae Venetiar••mque partes. In fine, It was never heard, That the Bishop of Aquilei•• was called Metropolitanum Venetiae Provinciae. It is not likely, That this place hath been ad∣ded or changed, since the Letter was written. The Abbot Anthelmi supposeth, That the pre∣cedent Letter, in many MSS. was entitled, Ad Metropolitanum Provinciae Venetiae, and that that gave an occasion to the Notary, who saw that the precedent Letter was spoken of in this, to change Istriae into Venetiae upon the credit of the Title only. But there are only two MSS. wherein this Letter is so superscribed. In all the other, it is only directed to the Bishop of Aquileia, and yet we find in the Letter to Septimius, Metropolitanum Provinciae Venetiae. It is then far more probable, That it was the 7th. Letter, which gave occasion to entitle the 6th. so, in some MSS. than that the meer Title of the 6th. Letter should be the cause, that the Text of the 7th. hath been corrupted. But we have stayed too long upon a Critical Point of little Importance.

The 8th. Letter of S. Leo is dated Jan. 30. 444. In many MSS. it is directed to the Bi∣shops of several Provinces. In one, to the Bishops of Sicily, but commonly to the Bishops of Italy. S. Leo writes, in this Letter, That he had found out, and convinced many Manichees of their Error in the City of Rome; That he received such of them to Penance, as acknow∣ledged their Sin, and the rest he had banished according to the Edicts of the Emperors. He exhorts those to whom he writes, to be Vigilant, as good Pastors, to discover those, who might lurk in their Diocesses.

The 9th. Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna had never been published, had it not been found in a MSS. in the Library of the Abby of Fleury. It is a very dubious piece, as F. Quesnel shews in his Notes, for, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The date, by the Consuls, is apparently false. Va∣lentinian had been Consul 4 times in 435. but never had Avienus for his Collegue, who was not Consul till 450. S. Leo was not yet Pope, when the first was Consul, and Hilarius Bishop of Arles, to whom this Letter was written, was dead, when the latter was Consul. But the date may be amended, by putting it under the Consulship of Valentinian, the 6th. time, and of Nomius. 2. The Stile of this Letter is altogether different from S. Leo's. 3. We find therein the name of Archbishop, which the Latin Authors did not use at that time. 4. Nor is it probable, That S. Leo did write two Letters to the same Bishops, at the same time, and upon the same subject; and the 10th. being certainly S. Leo's, this ought to be accounted a Forgery. 'Tis very short. He therein revokes the Privileges granted to the Church of Arles, because Hilarius had refused to submit to his Judgment, and restored them to the Church of Vienna.

The 10th. Letter to the Bishops of that Province, is about the difference between Hilarius Bishop of Arles and S. Leo. For the full understanding of which▪ we must observe, 1. That there had been a Contest, a long time, between the Bishops of Vienna and the Bishop of Arles, about the Rights of the Metropolis in the Province of Vienna. 2. That the Council of Tau∣rinum, to appease this Quarrel, had ordain'd, That whosoever, of the two, could prove, that his City was the Civil Metropolis, should enjoy the Right of the Ecclesiastical Metropolitan of all the Province; but that, in the mean while, each should have, for Suffragans, the Bi∣shops

which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. That the Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉) That the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which belongs to the Province of N•…•…, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that Province. 4. That Hilarius, Bi∣shop of Arles, desitous to maintain the Right of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 given to his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, went 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and light upon a Bishop called 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to a Widow, and who had had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. This Bishop went 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rome, and there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Iudgment given against 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by 〈…〉〈…〉 5. That 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ Bishop of Arles, followed him, and after he had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Church of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and S. P••••l, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p••ay to these Apo∣•…•… there, he went to S. Le••, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him not to trouble the Churches. He made his Complaints concerning the French Bishops, who, after they had been deservedly con∣•…•… in France, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, notwithstanding, allowed to assist at the Holy Sacrament in the City of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 des•…•…d 〈…〉〈…〉 to his Pre•…•…sions, declaring to him, at the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉, That he was not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to accuse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••versary, but •…•…ly to make his Protestations and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and that did not please 〈◊〉〈◊〉, he would would home, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 really did, when he saw, That S. Leo called a Synod to b••ing the Ma•…•… to Tryal. 6. That after his Departure, S. L•••• absolved and restored him to his See.

Upon this occasion, and in this juncture of Affairs did this Pope write in 445. to the Bi∣shop•• of the Province of Vi••••n••, this better of which we are speaking. He begins with an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Apostolick Se••, and says, That he had been consulted very often by the French Bishops, and had disannulled and confirmed their Judiciary Sentences, which had been ••••••ught to him by appeal. He complains, That Hi••••ry had disturbed the Peace and Union of the Churches; That he had endeavour'd to make the Bishops of the Seven Provinces subject to his Authority, without submitting to S. Peter's whom he had resisted and ••essen'd, being puff'd up with a Spirit of Pride. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉, That having examined the Cause of Celidonius, he found him really Innocent of what he was accused, and therefore had made void the Sen∣tence, which had been given against him, which nevertheless he would have ratif••ed, if what was alledged had been true.

He speaks afterward of the Cause of another Bishop of the Province of Vienna, named Projectus: He complains, That Hi••••••y would have ordained, in his Place, a Person who had been chosen neither by the People, nor Clergy, nor Nobility. He demands why S. Hilary did intermeddle with the Ordinations of another Province. He reproves his Departure from Rome, and at length declares, That he had ordained that Projectus should remain in his See.

He then commands the Bishops to ordain Canonically, in pursuance of the Election of the People or Clergy, and that every one of them keep within their own Bounds. He condemns Hilary for carrying along with him armed Men in ordaining or driving out Bishops: He forbids him the calling of Synods, and declares him deprived not only of his Right of Pri∣macy, which he had pretended to, but also of the Right of Metropolis in the Province of Vienna, which he had us••••ped. He will not have him ordain, and declares him fallen away from the Communion of the Apostolick See. He brings here an excellent Rule about Excom∣munication; We must not, saith he, easily excommunicate any, nor ought it to be inflicted upon any at the Humor of every peevish Bishop, but we ought to use that Means to punish a great Crime. He adds, That none may be Excommunicated but the Guilty, not they that have no Part in the Action.

He exhorts the Bishops, to whom he wrote, to put in execution what he had commanded: He makes them take notice, That he did not assume to himself the Ordinations of their Churches, but preserved them from the Encroachments of Hilary. Lastly, He forbids them calling a Synod, of more than one Province, without the Consent of Leontius an Ancient Bishop (he doth not tell us of what see, but in the Life of Honoratus, written by Hilary Bishop of Arles, there is one Leontius Bishop of Frejus [Forum Jul••••, a City in Provence] spoken of) S. Leo, by this, gives him the Primacy for a Time, upon the account of his Age, but yet wholly by the Leave and Approbation of the Bishops of France, si vobis placet, and without diminishing the Rights of the Metropolitans.

It remains that we observe, That neither Hilary Bishop of Arles, nor the Bishops of France did give place to S. Leo, and that this Pope continued firm to his Opinion, although Hilary sent Two Deputies to him to appease him. This is evident by the Letter of Auxiliaris, Go∣vernour of Rome, recited by H••norat••s; in which he tells this Saint, That he hath spoken with Pope Leo, and Adds: In reading this you will be stirr'd, for you are always the same, and in the same Resolution. He advises him to soften his Terms, because, saith he, Roman Ears are tender.

Upon this account it was that the Pope, labouring with all his Might to have his Decrees put in execution, obtained an Edict of the Emperor Justinian, which he sent after this Let∣ter; by which the Emperor declares, That the Primacy of the Apostolick See ought not to

be lessen'd, being built upon the Merits of S. Peter, and confirm'd by the Authority of the Councils. He blames Hilary Bishop of Arles, for having arrogated the Ordinations to himself that did not belong to him, and having deposed Bishops unjustly. He commands, That the Sentence given against him by the Holy See, which ought to take place without the Imperial Authority; be executed, that no Man oppose it, and that there be no Disturbances in the Churches for the future. He ordains, That for ever hereafter, neither the French Bishops, nor the Bishops of other Provinces, shall undertake any thing hereafter, without the Authority of the Bishop of Rome; That all that he orders shall be acknowledged for a Law; and that the Bishops, which he shall cite, shall be compell'd by the Governour to come to Rome. This Edict, which is contrary to the Canons, and also to the Decrees of the Council of Sardica, hath no place here. It is dated the 6th of June, in 445.

The Eleventh Letter to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, was written, certainly, some Time after the Ordination of that Bishop, and consequently in 445. S. Leo having spoken of the Union and Agreement that there ought to be between the Church of Rome and Alexandria; because the First was founded by S. Peter, and the Second by S. Mark his Scholar: He exhorts Dioscorus to observe that which was practised in the Church of Rome, touching the Times of Ordinations, which ought not to be conferr'd on all Days indifferently, but only on Saturday-night, just before the Lord's Day, which may be looked upon as belonging to the Lord's Day. He would have them, who celebrate Ordination, to be Fasting, and that they continue the Fast of Saturday upon the Lord's Day; that is to say, That since they begin to fast all Day on Saturday, they do not eat till the Evening of the Lord's Day, after the Ordi∣nation is ended; so we ought to understand S. Leo's Words. This Explication is confirm∣ed by Urban II. in the Council of Clermont in the Year 1095. where speaking of Ordinations. he says, Et tunc protrahatur jejunium usque ad crastinum, ut magis appareat in die dominico ordines fieri. And then let the Fast be lengthned till the Morrow, that it may be the more apparent that Orders are conferred on the Lord's Day.

In the Second Part of this Letter he advises him to observe the Custom of the Church of Rome; which was to reiterate the Holy Communion, when so great Numbers come to the Church upon solemn Festivals, that all those that come cannot enter. It was evidently the same, who began the Sacrament again, for the Bishop ordinarily administred it, and it was not allow'd to a Priest to offer in the presence of a Bishop. He wrote this Letter to Dioscorus, by Possidonius a Deacon of Alexandria, who is evidently the same that S. Cyril sent to S. Cae∣lestine; for S. Leo witnesses, That he had often been present at the Ordinations and Processions of Rome.

The Twelfth Letter is to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica, and although the Date of it be not well known, yet it is referr'd to this Year. S. Leo in this Letter lays some Faults to the Charge of this Bishop, and prescribes him some Rules, which he would have him observe. He tells him, That he and his Predecessors being made his Deputy, he ought to execute that Charge with Moderation, and suspend the Judgment of Matters of Consequence, and which have some Difficulty, to make Report of them to the Holy See. He tells him, That he must act with Gentleness and Charity, principally in reproving Bishops, and that he must rather amend them by Kindness than Severity. He afterward objects some Faults against him, not directly laying them to his Charge. They, saith he, who seek their own Interest more than that of Jesus Christ, take no Care how they manage Affairs; they depart from the Laws of Charity; they love rather to Rule than to Advise; the Honour pleaseth them, when it raiseth them, and they abuse the Title which hath been given them for the Preservation of Peace. He adds, That it is a Grief to him, that he is forced to use such Terms, but he thinks himself in Fault, when he knows, That he, whom he hath made his Deputy, is departed from the Laws which he hath given him. He then tells him, That the Reason of this Imputation is the Severity which he hath used towards Atticus Metropolitan of Epirus, because he had not appeared at the Synod, to which he had been summon'd. He tells him, That although he were Blame-worthy, yet he had not Power to condemn him, without waiting for the Judgment of the Holy See; because being but Deputy, he was assumed, in partem sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis; To share in his Care, not exercise the same Authority.

He appoints, in the Second Canon, that Metropolitans should preserve the Rights which are granted them by the Canons.

In the Third he says, That such Persons may not be chosen for Bishops, as are Laymen, or Novices, or twice married, or have married Widows. In the old Edition it is, Sed nec qui viduam copularit; Neither he that marrieth a Widow: It ought to be read, Qui unam vel habeat vel habuerit, sed quam sibi viduam copularit; He that hath or shall have but only one Wife, but whom he married when she was a Widow. F. Quesnel hath thus corrected it, following the Authority of the Collections of Councils.

In the Fourth Canon he commands the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to live unmarried, and observes, That the Use of Marriage was not allowed to Subdeacons. Never∣theless, S. Gregory, lib. 2. Regist. Ep. 42. says, That it was too hard to refuse it to the latter.

In the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Canon he saith that he ought to be made a Bishop, who is chosen by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and People. He gives Power to the Metropolitan, in case that their Judgments be divided, to preferr him who is of greatest Worth, and hath most Votes: But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 forbids him making any Person a Bishop, whom the People would not have.

In the Sixth Canon he judges it very fit, that the Metropolitan should write to his Vicar concerning the Election, that it may be confirmed by his Judgment, and so, after the Death of the Metropolitan, he wills that the Bishops of the Province should assemble themselves and chuse one of the Priests or Deacons of the Vacant Church, and that they give an Account of their Election to his Vicar, that he may confirm it: He commands him, notwithstanding, to return a speedy Answer; Sicut enim, saith he, Just as electiones nullis volumus dilationibus fatigari, ita nihil permittimus te ignorante praesumi; For as we will not have due Elections to be disturbed with Delays, so we do not allow that any thing be presumed on without your Knowledge.

In the Seventh Canon he appoints, according to the Nicene Council, That two Synods be held every Year in each Province. He requires that if there be any Cause among the Bishops, accused of Crimes, which cannot be determined in the Provincial Synod, it should be made known to his Vicar, and, if he could not end it, he should write to the Holy See.

In the Eighth he declares, That he that would go from one Church to another, out of Contempt of his own, shall be deprived both of that he would have, and of that he hath. Ut nec illis praesideat, quos per avaritiam concupivit, nec illis quos per superbiam sprevit. That he may not preside over those whom he through Covetousness hath desired, not those whom through Pride he hath contemned. S. Leo in this follows the Canon of the Council of Sardica; but those of Nice and Chalcedon permitted them to continue in their First Church.

In the Ninth he forbids the Bishops to receive or invite the Clergy of another Church. He will so have it, That if a Clerk, being come out of his own Diocess, abide in the same Pro∣vince, he should be compell'd to return to his own Church by the Metropolitan; and if he be out of the Province, by the Vicar of the Holy See.

In the Tenth he enjoyns him to observe a great deal of Moderation, in calling his Brethren together. He requires, That if it be necessary to convene a Synod about some weighty Affair, he would constrain no more than Two Bishops of each Province to come to it, and those such as the Metropolitan should chuse; and that he should keep them no longer than Five Days.

In the last he commands Anastasius, That if in any Thing he found his Judgment different from his Brethren's, that he should write to him before he did any thing, that all things might be done with Unity and Concord. He observes, That although the Dignity of Bishops be common (for so it ought to be read, Etsi dignitas communis, non est tamen ordo generalis) their Order is different; that although the Apostles were equal, yet a Primacy was always given to one only: That, according to this Platform, the Distinction of Bishops is formed; and it hath been provided, That all should not assume to themselves all sorts of Rights. For this Reason it is that Metropolitical Bishops have greater Authority than other Bishops; that in great Cities there are those that have a greater Charge: And, that, Lastly, the Care of the Universal Church belongs to the See of S. Peter, that all the Churches may agree with their Head: That he must not take it ill to have one above him, who is himself above others, but he ought to obey the rather, as he desires others should obey him, and as he would not bear an heavy Yoke himself, he must not impose it upon others.

It is to be observ'd, That S. Leo wrote this Letter to a Bishop of Thessalonica, whom he had made his Vicar in the Diocess of Illyria, which he had a Mind to add to his Patriarchate, and govern it with the same Authority that he did the Sub-urbian Pro∣vinces.

The Thirteenth Letter directed to the Metropolitans of Achaia, is taken out of the Col∣lection of Holstenius. It is Dated January the 6th, 446. S. Leo tells them how Joyful he was at the Receipt of their Letters, understanding thereby, that they approved of what he had done, in committing the Care of the Churches of Illyria to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalo∣nica. He Admonishes them, That if there arise any Controversies among the Bishops of that Country, which cannot be decided in the Province, they ought to be brought before him, and determined by his Judgment, but if they are of very great consequence, and cannot be ended in the Provinces, nor accommodated by the Mediation of the Bishop of Thessalonica, the Bi∣shops of the Provinces must come to a Synod, which he will call, and Two or Three Bishops at least of each Province must be present at it. He then Reproves the Metropolitan of Achaia, because he had Ordained many contrary to the Canons of the Church, and particularly had not long before made a Person Bishop of Thespiae, who was unknown to the Inhabitants, and whom they were against. He thereupon forbids Metropolitans to Ordain such Persons as they thought good of, Bishops, without waiting for the consent of the People and Clergy, and enjoins them to accept him who shall be chosen by the common consent of all the City. Lastly, He re∣quires them to Observe the Canons, which forbid a Bishop to take a Clerk of another Bishop,

if he do not shew Letters from his own Bishop, that he is willing to let him have him. He looks upon this point of Discipline as being very useful to uphold Agreement and Peace among Bishops.

We have already spoken to the Fourteenth Letter written to Januarius Bishop of Aquileia.

The Fifteenth Letter written to Turribius, is of July the 21st, 447. S. Leo therein com∣mends that Bishop, that he had care to give him notice, that the Abominable Heresie of the Priscillianists began to spring up afresh in Spain. He also calls it the Sect of the Priscillianists, because, he says, it was an heap of detestable Errors, and most filthy Superstitions.

He adds, That that Heresie hath been Condemned by the Church as often as it hath ap∣peared, and that the Magistrates themselves have had so great an Hatred for that detestable Sect, that they have used the severity of the Laws against them, punishing the Author and principal Abetters with Death. And that not without Reason, because they saw that all Laws, Divine and Humane, would be subverted, and the Civil Society disturbed, if such Persons, who divulged so detestable Errors, were suffered to live. That this severity had been used a long time together with the Lenity of the Church, because, tho' the Church being contented with the Judgment of her Bishops, avoids all Sanguinary Punishments, yet it is helped by the Edicts of Princes, which cause them, that fear Temporal Penalties, to have recourse some∣times to Spiritual Remedies. S. Leo in the next place relates the Sixteen Articles, in which Turribius makes the Doctrine of the Priscillianists to consist; and shews us, that they contain so many Impieties. The Articles are these, 1. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are only One Person. 2. That there comes from the Essence of God, Virtues, that is to say, Spiritual Beings, which proceed from his Essence. 3. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God on∣ly, because he was Born of the Virgin Mary. 4. That they Fast on Christ's Nativity, and Sundays. 5. That the Soul is from the Divine Essence. 6. That Devils were never good by their Nature; that they were not Created by God, but they were Formed out of the Chaos, and Darkness. 7. That Marriage is forbidden, and that Generation is a detestable thing. 8. That the Bodies of Men are made by the Devil, and that they shall not rise from the Dead. 9. That the Children of the Promise are Born of Women, but are Conceived by the Holy Ghost. 10. That the Souls of Men have their abode in Heaven, before they are in∣closed in their Bodies, and that they are thrust into them upon the account of their Sins which they have committed heretofore. 11. That the Stars and Constellations govern all things by an inevitable Fate. 12. That the Body and Soul are subject to certain Powers, those that Govern the Soul are called Patriarchs, and those that Rule the parts of the Body, are Stars. 13. That the whole Body of the Canonical Scriptures is contained under the Name of the Patriarchs, which denote the Twelve Vertues which restore and illuminate the inner Man. 14. That our Bodies are subject to the Stars and Constellations. 15. S. Leo Ob∣serves, That they have corrupted the Books of Scripture, and make use of Apocryphal Works full of Errors; That the Bishops ought to take them from them and burn them, al∣tho' they bear the Names of the Apostles, and have some shew of Piety, because they ordina∣rily have an hidden Poison in them, and lead Men into Error. In the 16th. Article S. Leo prohibits the Book that Dictinius had composed, being a Priscillianist. He also speaks of their Infamous Mysteries, like to those of the Manichees, whom he had made to acknowledge their Crime. Lastly, He condemns those Bishops, who are in those Errors, which he before observed, or rather, who did not oppose them, and would not curse them.

In fine, As to that which Turribius hath Noted to S. Leo, that some of the Orthodox did doubt, Whether the Flesh of Jesus Christ was really in the Sepulchre, during the time that his Soul went down into Hell? He Answers, That he wondered that any Christian should doubt of that Truth, since it is plain by the Testimony of Holy Scripture, that the Body of Jesus Christ was Buried, and was raised again from the Dead. He concludes, That it is ne∣cessary that a Council be called in Spain in some convenient place, where the Bishops of the Neighbouring Provinces may be present, and there examine, if there be any Bishop who holds these Errors which he hath related, and if any be found, they must be Excommunicated, be∣cause it is not to be endured, that they who ought to Preach the Faith to others, should have the boldness themselves to dispute against the Creed and Gospel. He says, That he hath writ∣ten to the Bishops of the Provinces of Spain to Assemble a National Council and that it be∣longs to him, to whom he writes, to cause it to be put in execution; but if that cannot be done, the Bishops of Gallaecia should at least meet. He leaves the care of calling the Council not only to Turribius, but also to Idacius, and Caeponius, to which Two Bishops Turribius wrote a Letter which he sent a little after along with that which S. Leo wrote to him. That Bishop shews therein his Grief which he was in, to find his Country infected with so many Er∣rors, and commands them not to suffer the Christians to read such Apocryphal Books, as the Acts of S. Andrew, S. John, S. Thomas, and the Book intitled, The Memoirs of the Apo∣stles.

The Sixteenth Letter to the Bishops of Sicily is Dated October the 21st, 447. S. Leo in it reproves the Custom of the Churches of Sicily, in Administring Baptism upon the Feast of Epiphany, and says, That no Man ought to be Baptized, but upon the Feasts of Passover and Pentecost, according to the Custom of the Church of Rome, which he would have them to un∣derstand, that they are obliged to follow, because they were Ordain'd by the Bishop of Rome.

Nevertheless 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••heir 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not as yet given them notice of it, hoping they would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••hi•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 t••en prove••; That they ought to observe certain tunes for the Celebration of the Mysteries of Religion; That the Feast of Easter is the most proper time for the ••dministration of Baptism, because that is the time when those Mysteries are remem∣bred, which are represented by Baptism; That the Feast of Pentecost may also be joined with it; That th••se who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sickness, or Absence, could not receive the Sacrament of Baptism at Easter, might not be deprived at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Grace which it conferrs, and which the Holy Spirit pours ou•• upon the Faithful; That the Apostles themselves have Authorized this Usage; but that there is no other Feast on which Baptism can be Administred after a solemn manner, because, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we c••••ght to give a due respect to all the Festivals which are appointed for the Honour of God, yet we must keep the Mystical Representation of that Sacrament; That this Law nevertheless doth not ••inder from succouring those at all times which are in danger of Death; That those, who respect the Feast of Epiphany, as a fit Season for the Ad∣ministration of Baptism, because Jesus Christ upon that Day received the Baptism of John, ought to consider, that there is a great deal of difference between the Baptism of John, and that of Jesus Christ, and tha•• this last was not Instituted till the Side of Jesus Christ was open∣ed, and there came from thence Blood and Water. This was the reason that S. Leo defended the Custom of the Church of Rome, to which he endeavoured to oblige the Bishops of Sicily, who were in his Patriarchate, and commanded them to send every Year Three Bishops to the Synod which he did hold at Rome the 29th. of September.

There is another Letter to the same Bishops, Dated the next Day in which this last was writ∣ten, wherein upon the Complaints of the Clergy of Two Churches of Sicily, who had ac∣cused their Bishops for squandring away the Revenues of their Churches, he forbids the Bishops, That they do not give, pawn, change, or sell the Goods of their Churches, unless it be for the advantage of the Church, and with the advise of all the Clergy. But for fear least the Priests and De••cons should agree with their Bishop to make away the Church-goods, he forbids them, upon pain of Excommunication, to do any thing of that Nature, because it is Just, saith he, That not only the Bishops, but all Ecclesiastical Persons, should preserve the Revenues of the Church, and unreasonable, that the Goods given by the Faithful for the Salvation of their Souls, should be embezelled, or consumed.

Father Quesnel doubts, whether this Letter be S. Leo's, being induced to it by these Con∣jectures, 1. It is not found in any MSS. under the Name of S. Leo, Vossius having met with it in a MS. of Cardinal Sirlit's, hath Printed it under S. Leo's Name, upon the account of the Date. 2. 'Tis not this Pope's Stile, and there are in it many Expressions a 1.131 which he never uses. 3. What probability is there, that S. Leo would write to the same Bishops Two different Letters, Two Days together? could he not have written in the former what is in this latter? 4. The Abuse which is reproved in this Letter, doth not in the least agree with the times of S. Leo, and the Discipline which is therein Establish'd hath yet less resemblance. Who will believe, that in the time of S. Leo, it was allowed to a Bishop to Alienate the Goods of the Church with the consent of his Clergy only? 5. The Author of this Letter imposeth this Penalty upon the Clergy, who Abuse the Goods of the Church, To be deprived both of their Of∣fice, and the Communion of the Church. In S. Leo's time they never joined these Two Pu∣nishments together. These Conjectures are certainly very probable, and make me of F. Ques∣nel's Judgment, who thought this Letter forged, or at least, that it is another Leo's, and the Names of the Consuls have been added to it. This last is so much the more probable, be∣cause it is cited by Gratian under the Name of Pope Leo the 12th. Quaest. 2. cap. 52. sine ex∣••••ptione.

The Eighteenth Letter is written to Dorus, Bishop of Beneventum, and dated the 8th. of March, in the Year 448. He reproves that Bishop, for having disturbed the whole Order of Priests, by preferring a younger Priest before the more aged. He commands, That the more Ancient should t••ke their Places, unless it were those Two who had consented, That the Per∣son, of whom he speaks in this Letter, should be preferred before them, tho' they were Elder than he.

The Nineteenth Letter, dated Jame 1. 448. is an Answer to a Letter that Eutyches had written to S. Leo before he was condemned by Flavian. He had told him, That some Per∣sons did revive the Nestorian Errors again. S. Leo returns him Answer, That he commended his Care; and tells him, That he would provide a sure Remedy, when he should be informed more at large, who they are that have attempted it.

The following Letters, for the most part, concern the Affair of Eutyches, and the History of the Councils of Constantinople under Flavian, of Ephesus under Dioscorus, and of Chalceden. We shall put off speaking of these, till we shall make a particular Relation of that Affair. We shall satisfie our selves to speak, in this place, of those that have no reference to it.

Of this sort is the Thirty Sixth Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Arles. He congra∣tulates them, for that according to the desire of the Clergy, Nobility and People, they had, with one consent, ordained Ravennius Bishop of Arles, in the room of Hilarius; whom he calls a Bishop of blessed Memory. This Letter is dated Aug. 449.

The Thirty Seventh Letter is written to Ravennius, to congratulate his Promotion to the Bishoprick of Arles. He tells him. That he was much rejoyced at it, not only for his own sake; but upon the Account of the Church of Arles; for it is an Honour, as well as an Advantage to the Faithful, to have a Bishop who can help them, and give them an Example. He says, That he hath heretofore experienced his Moderation (Ravennius having been sent to Rome heretofore by Hilarius, his Predecessor.) He exhorts him to join Authority with that Modera∣tion, to mingle Justice with Lenity, to avoid Pride, to love Humility, and to keep himself within the bounds prescribed by the Laws of the Church. Lastly, he desires him to inform him often of his Government.

The following Letter is also directed to Ravennius, to whom he wrote about a, Vagabond named, Petronianus; who, being in France, boasted himself to be a Deacon of the Church of Rome. He gives him notice, That he was a Cheat, and desires him to write to all the Bishops of his Province, That they should not receive him into Communion. It is dated the 26th. of Aug. 449. but it is not very certain, that it is really S. Leo's.

The Bishops of the Province of Arles having receiv'd a Letter from S. Leo, concerning the Ordination of Ravennius, thought that they had a favourable opportunity given them of ob∣taining of S. Leo, a restitution of the Rights belonging to the Metropolis of Arles. They pre∣ferred a kind of Petition to him, in which, after they had shewn what respect they owed to the Holy See, and thanked S. Leo for the approbation he had given to their Election of Raven∣nius, they prayed him to restore the Privileges of the Church of Arles, which had been di∣minished by S. Leo's last Declarations. To prove the Prerogatives of that Church, they al∣ledge, 1. The Antiquity of the Church of Arles, which, they say, was founded by Trophimus, to whom they attribute the first planting of Religion in the Province of France called Narbonne. They observe, That Trophimus was sent by the Apostle S. Peter, which ought to be understood accord∣ing to the ordinary manner of Speaking used at that time, by the Bishops of Rome, Successors of S. Peter and the Apostles. 2. They confirm the Dignity of the Church of Arles by the Pri∣vileges, which the Popes themselves had granted to it. 3. As also by the Privileges which the Emperors Constantine, Valentinian and Honorius, had bestowed upon the City of Arles. 4. They alledged, That the Bishop of Arles was in the present possession of three Provinces adjoyning to Vienna, as subject to his Care; and besides these, which he governed by his own Authority, he had the Inspection over all France, as Apostolick Vicar, to enforce them to ob∣serve the Rules of the Church. Moved, by these Reasons, they entreated him to render to the Church of Arles all his Prerogatives.

The 50th. Letter to the Bishops of the same Province, is an Answer to the precedent Peti∣sion, or the Judgment which S. Leo gives upon their Demand. After he hath declared the Joy, that he did conceive for the kindness which the French Bishops had for Ravennius, he says, That the Bishop of Vienna had prevented him from granting their Petition, having sent Letters and Deputies to complain, That the Bishop of Arles had ordained the Bishop of Vasio. He adds, That having considered the Reasons, on both sides, he had found, That the Cities of Arles and Vienna, having always been very famous, had disputed about their Church-Privileges; That sometimes one was Superior, and sometimes the other got uppermost; so that he must not leave the Church of Vienna without any Prerogative, especially since he had lately honoured it with the Power which he had taken away from Hilarius Bishop of Arles. He therefore grants him four Suffragan-Bishops, which are Valentia, Tarentum, Geneva and Gratianople, and leaves the other under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Arles, who will be, as we require him, saith he, so great a Friend of Peace and Concord, that he will not think that taken from him that is given to his Brother.

The Fifty First Letter is directed to Ravennius. He sends to him his Letter to Flavian; and exhorts him to get himself a Name in the beginning of his Episcopacy, by defending the Catholick Faith, about the Incarnation. 'Tis dated May 5. 450.

The Seventy Sixth Letter is also written to the same Bishop, but upon another Subject. He gives him notice on what day the Feast of Passover was to be celebrated in the year 452. and commands him to publish it to all the French; which shews, That he acknowledged him his Vicar among the French.

This Letter is followed by a Letter of Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus, French Bishops, in which they thank S. Leo, That he had sent them his Letter to Flavian, and pray him to re∣view and correct the Copy, which they had taken of it. This Letter is not so considerable as the next to it, which is a Synodical Letter of a French Council to Pope Leo, to thank him for sending them his Letter to Flavian. The name of Ravennius is in the beginning of it, which may make us think, That the Synod was held at Arles. The Subscriptions shew, That it was composed by 44 Bishops out of the 7 French Provinces. These Bishops, after they have ex∣cused themselves, That they gave him an Answer no sooner, because they could not meet to∣gether, say, That they received S. Leo's Letter as a sum of Faith; That many of them ac∣knowledged the Doctrine which they had received by Tradition to be contained in it, and some

of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 inst•…•… by •…•…ing of it. They 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. L•…•… in the most obliging 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to•…•…y; That next to God the ••aith 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are beholding to him for the •…•…y of there Faith.

They Add, That they had also 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Emperor upon the same Subject, to testifie to him the Zeal which why •…•…or the Faith, by following the Example of the Pope, but that having received News from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, they believed that it would be unprofitable. They call the Emperor S. L•…•…'s Son, F•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. In fine, they write, That they never cease to give God Thanks, that he hath given a Bishop of so much Holiness and Faith to the Apostolick Church, from whence comes the Origin and Source of our Religion: Apostolicae Sedi, unde •…•…'s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 orig•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉. They pray to God to preserve him a long Time in that see. They make an End by saying, That although they come short of his Merit, yet they have the same Faith, •…•…s 〈◊〉〈◊〉, pari side, and that they are ready to defend it and die for it. This Letter is full of Expressions very respectful to the Holy See, and very oblig∣ing to the Person of S. Leo.

S. Leo also answers them in a courteous Manner, in Letter 77. He therein accepts their Excuse, commends their Faith, explain the Errore of the Nestorians and Eutyches. He lets them know, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Heretick hath been condemned in a Synod of 600 Bishops, who confirm'd the Catholick and Apostolick Faith. He •…•…es, That the Catholick Faith may not be changed; That it may be assaulted by its Enemies, but that such Opposition rendred it more illustrious. He says, That the Synod hath approved the Letter which he had written, and had condemned Dioscorus. Lastly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 earnestly intreats them to give God Thanks, to pray for the happy R•…•… of them who were gone to the Council: And he desires them to let the Bishops of Spain know what had passed in the East.

This Letter is follow'd by a Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, to S. Leo, in which that Bishop signifies to him the Joy that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had for the Return of the Western Bishops, who had been present at the Council of Chalcedon, and assures S. Leo, That his Letter to Flavian hath been read and approved in the Council of Milan, where also the Error of Eutyches was condemned.

The following Letters are in the Council of Chalcedon. In Letter 78. to Marcian, after having congratuled the Council of Chalcedon, he blames the Ambition of Anatolius, Pa∣triarch of Constantinople, who •…•…ted those Rights that did not belong to him. He was wil∣ling, That the City of Constantinople should be equal to Rome; but he says, It must not be so in the Churches; That there is no solid Foundation, but that Rock which Jesus Christ hath laid for the Foundation of his Church; That Anatolius cannot prove, That his Church is an Apostolick See; That the Privileges of Churches cannot be overthrown by any other way, being established by the Canons of the Fathers, and fixed by the Decrees of the Council of Nice; That he is obliged, by his Office, to see them executed, and he should be much to blame if he should suffer them to be broken. He then exhorts the Emperor to desire Anatolius to desist from the Right he pretends to and to which the Legates of the Holy See opposed themselves, and if he will not, to make use of his Authority to keep him in order, and hinder him from encroaching upon the Rights of other Bishops. This Letter is dated April 22. in the year 452.

He repeats the same things in the 79th. to the Empress Pulcheria, which is of the same date. In it he observes particularly, That Anatolius had obtained the Bishoprick of Constantinople through the favour of the Empress, and through his consent, Pietatis vestrae beneficio, & pietatis meae assensu. He had also said before in the precedent Letter, That he owed his Bishoprick to the kindness of the Emperor, Vestro beneficio. He urges also the Canons of the Council of Nice against the pretences of Anatolius, and declares, That he doth cancel and make void, by the Authority of S. Peter, all the Constitutions which are contrary to the Laws established in the Council of Nice.

He represents the same things to Anatolius in the 80th. Letter. He therein commends his Faith, but condemns his Pretensions. He finds fault with him, That he ordained the Bishop of Antioch, and was willing to break the Decrees of the Council of Nice, by making the Church of Alexandria to lose the second place, and that of Antioch the third, and by depriving the Metropolitans in his Jurisdiction of the Rights and Honours which they had. He accuses him of endeavouring to make use of the Council, which was called for the suppressing of Heresie, to further his own Ambition. He assures him, That no Synod can hurt what the Council of Nice hath done, and that the Legates of the Holy See had reason to oppose his At∣tempts. He exhorts him, at length, to keep himself within the bounds of Humility and Chri∣stian Charity, and not give any further occasion of Scandal in the Church of Jesus Christ. He tells him, That he may not elevate himself upon the account of some pretended Constitutions of the Bishops made 60 years since, which were never sent to the Holy See, and have never been executed. He forbids him disturbing the Metropolitans about their ancient Rights, and he declares, That he intends that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch should remain in possession of their ancient Order. This Letter is also dated the same day.

S. Leo hath not contented himself with writing so strongly against the pretensions of Anato∣lius, but in his 81st. Letter written some days after the former, he commands Julian, Bishop of Coos, who had the charge of his Affairs in the East, not to consent to Anatolius's pretences.

And since Julian had written to him in his Favour, he tells him, That tho' he had a very great respect for him, yet he will never do any thing upon his Recommendation, which is contrary to the Rules of the Church. He adds, That Anatolius ought to be throughly satisfied, That by his Suffrage he had been raised to the Bishoprick of Constantinople, without obliging him to break the Laws of the Church in favour of his Ambition. He commands Julian to have a greater regard to the order of the Universal Church, than the personal Friendship of Anatolius, and not desire a favour of him, which he cannot obtain, without making him that requests it, and him that should grant it, guilty of a great sin.

The 82d. Letter is directed to Rusticus, Ravennius, Venerius and other French Bishops. S. Leo relates the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, and sends them a Copy of the Sen∣tence which Paschasius and Lucentius had pronounced in the Council of Chalcedon. It follows this Letter, but is something different from that which is found in the Council of Chal∣cedon.

The 83d. Letter is directed to Theodorus Bishop of Frejus, and dated June 10. Anno 452. S. Leo having been consulted by this Bishop, without communicating it to his Metropolitan, he admonisheth him, That he ought first of all to address himself to him for the obtaining an Ex∣plication of his Difficulties, and if he were also ignorant of the Solution, they might join to∣gether to consult the Holy See, because there ought to be no question made, saith he, of any things which concern the general observation of all the Churches, without the Authority of the Primates, i. e. the Metropolitans. Notwithstanding, he doth not forbear to instruct this Bishop about that which he demanded of him, concerning the discipline of the Church to∣wards Penitents. He says, That Repentance is the only Remedy for Sins committed after Baptism; That Jesus Christ hath given power to Priests to impose Penance upon Sinners, and to admit them when they are purified by a proportionable satisfaction; to admit them, I say, to the participation of the Sacrament by the door of Reconciliation. He adds, That Je∣sus Christ comes between the action of the Priest, as I may, insomuch, That if the effect fol∣low the action, we must believe, that it is by the Vertue of the Holy Spirit; That if any Pe∣nitent die before reconciliation, he can't be reconciled after Death, but must be left to the Judgment of God; but he assures us, That it is very profitable and necessary, that Sins be remit∣ted before the day of Death, by the Prayer of the Priest. He will not have reconciliation denied to those who demand Penance, when they see them in danger of death, but he ad∣monishes Sinners not to trust or depend upon that Pardon, nor put off their Repentance till the hour of death. He saith, That it is a sufficient Reason to grant reconciliation to those, who are in manifest Danger, that they shew their desires of it by some Signs, or there are some to witness that they have required it. Lastly, He commands this Bishop to inform his Metropo∣litan of these Answers.

The 84th. Letter is written to the Emperor Marcian. S. Leo in the first place congratu∣lates the re-establishment of the Catholick Doctrine. He then signifies to him, That he had had some suspicion of Anatolius, and upon that account it was that he had not, for some time, sent him Letters of Communion, but in consideration of the Emperor's Testimony, and the Profession of Faith which he had made, he had receiv'd him to his Communion, yet having advertised him, That he would not communicate with those who had persecuted Flavian, and that the Defender of the Eutychian Party should be deposed; That he was throughly satisfied, by his Letter, in which he signifies to him what had been decided in his Synod, but that he was surprized to hear, That after he had begun so well, he had deposed Aetius the Arch-Dea∣con, who was always an opposer of the Eutychians, to put into his place Andrew an Eutychian; which was done with so great Precipitancy, that he was ordained upon a Friday, contrary to the common Usage and to Apostolick Tradition, and that in degrading the former, they had given him the charge of the Coemetery, condemning him by that means to a kind of Exile. He prays the Emperor to take Aetius into his Protection, and to compel Anatolius to revoke what he had done. This Letter is of March 10. 453.

He wrote also at the same time the 85th. Letter to the Empress Pulcheria. It is upon the same Subject, and contains almost the same things. He therein observes, That tho' Andrew had abjured the Error of the Eutychians, yet he ought not to be preferred before those who have always preserved the Faith in Purity.

He wrote also the next Day the following Letter about the same business to Julian Bishop of Coos his Agent in the East. It appears by that Letter, That Anatolius had taken away the Arch-Deaconry from Aetius, by Ordaining him Priest (for a Priest not being capable of an Arch-Deaconry) under the pretence of raising him to a greater Dignity, he had really deprived him of the Office of Arch-Deacon, which was more Honourable. S. Leo complains of these proceedings, and so much the more, because he had put a Person that favoured the Eutychians into his place. He commands Julian to observe diligently, in the Name of the Holy Aposto∣lick See, what passes in the East, and speak freely to the Emperor about those things that re∣spect the good of the Church. He would have him write to him about such matters as may administer Debates. He enjoins him to reprove Anatolius smartly, because he had put an He∣retical Arch-Deacon into the place of an Orthodox One. He accuses this Patriarch of having no Zeal for the Faith. He desires Julian to let him know, what it was that disturbed the Monks of Palaestine, whether they are Eutychians, or whether they are at odds with their Bi∣shop

Juvenal, because he is a favourer of that Party. He observes,

That they ought to be punished according to the Nature of their fault; for there is a great deal of difference, saith he, between opposing the Faith, and being a little too hot for the Faith.

He requires him also to give him intelligence of the Monks of Aegypt, and the Affairs of Alexandria. In the last place he tells him, That he had not received the Form of Faith which he had sent him. It is not known what Form of Faith this is which S. Leo speaks of in this place, and which Julian sent him. F. Sirmondus hath Published One, which he pretends is this, but F. Chiffletius assures us, That he found it in that MS. of F. Sirmondus attributed to Alcuinus. F. Quesuel believes, That the Form of Faith which Julian sent to S. Leo, was nothing else, but the definition of Faith, which is in the Fifth Action of the Council of Chalcedon. S. Leo also desires Julian to send him a Translation of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon at large, which were not understood at Rome, because they were written in Greek.

The Eighty Seventh Letter is directed to the Bishops who were present at the Council of Chal∣cedon. In it S. Leo approves of the Decisions of that Council concerning Matters of Faith, but declares at the same time, that he will never consent to what hath been done there contrary to the Canons of the Council of Nice. This Letter bears Date March the 21st. 453.

S. Leo was obliged to write it for the satisfaction of the Emperor, who had required him to give his approbation plainly to that which had been defined in the Council of Chalcedon, for fear, least he should take an occasion to oppose the Council, because the Pope would not ac∣knowledge the Rights which he had granted to Anatolius. This S. Leo himself Testifies in the following Letter to Julian of Coos, wherein he praises the Zeal of the Emperor, and Empress, who had restrain'd the Insolence of some Monks. He also tells him, That the Emperor ha∣ing privately bid him to Admonish the Empress, he wrote presently to her, and he desires him to let him know what was the effect of his Letter, and if in short she hath approved of his Doctrine, or rather, S. Athanasius, Theophilus, and S. Cyril's.

As to the business of Aetius, he says, That he much Commiserated his Affliction, but he thought he must bear it patiently, for fear he seem to carry things too high. In fine, he tells him, That Anatolius persisted in his Claim, and that he understood by the Messenger that brought him the News of the Ordination of the Bishop of Thessalonica, that he would make the Bishops of Illyria to subscribe it. For this reason it was that he did not write to them, al∣tho' Julian had desired him to do it, because he knew by that, that he would not be amended by it. He sends him Two Copies of the precedent Letter, the one by it self, the other at the end of the Letter, which was written to Anatolius, that he might give that to the Emperor which he thought most convenient.

In the Eighty Ninth he writes to the Emperor about that which he required of him, to give his Approbation of what the Council of Chalcedon had defined concerning the Faith. He assures him, That he had approved it already when he wrote to Anatolius, but that that Bishop would not Publish his Letter, because he therein reproves his Ambition. He thanks God, that he had given them an Emperor who knew how to join the Priestly Vigor and Royal Power to∣gether. Perhaps you will wonder at this Expression, but as F. Quesnel has already observed, there are many such in S. Leo's Letters. Constantine assumes to himself the Title of an Out∣ward Bishop of the Church. The Fathers of the Councils of Chalcedon, and of Constantino∣ple, under Flavian, have not scrupled in their Acclamations of Praise to the Emperors, to give them the Title of Bishop. S. Leo also commends Marcian, because he took upon him to main∣tain the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and that he had suppressed the Commotions of the Monks. Lastly, He assures him, That he had declared his Judgment of the Council of Chalcedon in obedience to his Command. He says a little after the same things to Pulcheria in the Ninetieth Letter, Dated March the 21st. 453.

In the Ninety First written to Julian Bishop of Coos, he tells him, That he had omitted no∣thing that he was able to do for the defence of the Church's Cause; That it belongs to the Emperor to suppress the Disturbers of Church and State. He adds, That the Bishops ought not to allow the Monks to Preach, and therefore he wondred, that Thalassius, who was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, had given that Liberty, to one George, who was fallen from the Monastick State by his Irregularities. He says, That he will write to him according to his Duty, if Juli∣an judges it convenient. Lastly, He exhorts him to do his utmost endeavour, that the Empe∣ror do hinder the Hereticks from troubling the Peace of the Church. This Letter is Dated April the 9th, in the same Year.

The Ninety Second Letter to Maximus Bishop of Antioch treats of several things. He ob∣serves in the first place, That the Catholick Faith keeps the Mean between the Two Extreams of Nestorius, and Eutyches. He Admonishes Maximus to be vigilant over the Churches of the East, but more especially over those, which the Council of Nice had entrusted him withal, to prevent that Heresie be not established in them. And that he might be able to do this with the greater Authority, he advises him to maintain the Rights, which the Council of Nice had allowed his Church, and preserve to himself the third place. That he will easily gain his ends, by doing so, because it is impossible, that the Order established by the Inviolable Canons of the Council of Nice should be overthrown; That Ambition might prompt to make a Change as it already hath happened in the Council, where Juvenal endeavoured to usurp the Primary of Palaestine, and attempted to ground his Pretensions upon some supposititious Wri∣tings,

and that S. Cyril being afraid of that Enterprise, had written to him, but that whatsoever Constitutions were made thereupon against those of the Council of Nice, whensoever a more numerous Council should meet, it would not, nor ought to be valid; That if his Le∣gates had consented to any Decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which did not concern Do∣ctrine, he declared it null, because he had sent them for no other end but to defend the Faith of the Church against Heresies; That all that had been handled in the Synods of Bishops, ex∣cept what concerned the Faith, may not be received, if it do not agree with the Decrees of the Council of Nice; That he will see, by the Copy of the Letter written to Anatolius, how vigorously he defends the Council of Nice. Lastly, he advertiseth Maximus to prohibit the Monks and Lay-Men from Preaching, and so much the more because it belongs to the Bishops only to do it. This Letter is of the 10th. of June.

In the Ninety Third Letter to Theodoret, he, in the first place, testifies the Joy which he had when he understood by the Legates which he had sent to the Council of Chalcedon, That the Catholick Faith had triumphed over the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians, and that the Council had confirmed by its Judgment, which was not subject to amendment, the Doctrines which he had asserted. These words are very remarkable, because they evidently prove to us, That there is no Judgment but that of an Universal Council, which may not be re-exami∣ned, and that the Judgment of the Pope himself is subject to amendment. This was it that made him add, That he was not troubled, that some People would not accept the Judgment which he had given, to evidence that the acknowledgment which the other Sees had made of his Supremacy, as given to him by God, was not meer Flattery. That the Opposition which the Truth had met withal upon that occasion, was the cause of some good, because the Divine Favours are more thankfully acknowledged, when they are obtained with difficulty, and God's Providence brings us to the fruition of Good by a kind of Evil. That the Truth is made clearer, and upholds it self with the greater strength, when the examination confirms, that Faith which we have been taught; and that lastly, the Grandeur of the Priestly Dignity shews it self best, when we respect the Authority of the Bishops that are most highly promoted; yet with a Proviso, that we do not in any wise encroach upon the Privileges of such as are infe∣rior to them. Afterward he invites Theodoret to rejoice with him at the Victory which the Truth had obtained. He sets himself against the Outrages which Dioscorus had committed. He tells Theodoret, That he must equally avoid the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches. He thanks God, That he hath been freed from all manner of Suspicion; and at last, exhorts him to be watchful for the Defence of the Faith of the Church, and not permit either Lay-men or Monks to become Preachers. This Letter is dared June 12.

The Ninety Fourth Letter to the Emperor Marcian, is about a difficult Controversie which was in the Church, concerning the day on which Easter should be kept in the year 455. S. Leo says, That the Ancient Fathers had imposed that Task upon the Bishop of Alexandria to find out the Feast of Easter every year, and to make it known to the Apostolick See, that he might give notice of it to the far distant Churches. That Theophilus had made a Calendar for an Hundred years, beginning at the year 380. but that the Passover in the 76th. year, i. e. in the year of Jesus Christ 455, is appointed upon an extraordinary day, and too much advanced in the Month of April. He beseeches Marcian to command, That an exact Calculation be made, that all Churches may celebrate this Feast at the same time. The following Letter to Julia•• is upon the same Subject. Both are of June 16. This last, in the ordinary Editions, is dire∣cted to Eudoxia. But the manner of writing, and MSS. prove to us, That it was really written to Julian.

The Ninety Sixth Letter is addressed to the Empress Eudoxia. In it he exhorts her to make use of her Authority to compel some Monks of Palaestine to submit themselves to the Council of Chalcedon.

In the Ninety Seventh Letter to the Monks of Palaestine, he explains the Opinions which he had asserted in his Letter to Flavian, and evinces, That his Doctrine is clear contrary to the Error of Nestorius, as well as that of Eutyches.

In his Ninety Eighth Letter, he desires Julian to give him an exact Account of the News of what happened at Constantinople, and to take effectual care that the Canons be observed. It is dated June 25. 453.

The Ninety Ninth bears date Jan. 9. following. He gives the Emperor Thanks for ap∣peasing the Troubles of Palaestine, and restoring Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, to his See again.

The following Letter to Julian is of the same date. In it he shews much Joy, That the Monks of Palaestine had acknowledged their Error, and that Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, was restored. He adds, That Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, [Successor of Dioscorus, who was deposed] did write him a Letter, in which he makes known to him the Purity of his Doctrine. He speaks of the difference between himself and this Bishop, about the Celebration of Easter, in the year 455. He says, That he hath approved nothing in the Council of Chalcedon but what concerns the Faith, and was much pleased that Aetius had been found Innocent.

In the Hundred and First Letter to Marcian, S. Leo assures this Emperor, That he will free∣ly be reconciled to Anatolius, and for that end had already written to him, if his Letters, which he hath sent him, had had any effect, or he had answered them; yet if he will submit himself

to the Can••ns, and renounce his ambitious Pretensions, he would instantly receive him to his Communion. This Letter bears date, March the 9th.

The following Letter to Julian is of the same date. He lets him know, That he had re∣ceiv'd a Letter from Proterius, in which he shews himself well principle'd in the Faith; but because he was extreamly troubled with the Faction of the Eutychians, who having made a corrupt Translation of S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, would perswade Men, That it favoured the Error of Nestorius; he desires Julian to cause it to be translated into Greek, and send it to Alexandria, sealed with the Emperor's Signet. He commands him to get knowledge of the Emperor's Answer about the day on which the Feast of Easter is to be kept the next year, and send him word of it, because the time of sending the Circular Letters for the Passover is at hand.

The Hundred and Third Letter is written to Proterius Bishop of Alexandria. S. Leo dis∣covers to that Bishop, the Joy which he had conceived, when he understood, by his Epistle, That he is of an Orthodox Judgment, and that the Church of Alexandria hath received of S. Mark, the Scholar of S. Peter, the same Faith which the Romans have received of his Master. He exhorts Proterius carefully to defend this Faith. He adds, That he hath taught no new Doctrine in his Letter to Flavian, nor departed from the Rule of Faith received from his An∣cestors; and if Dioscorus had done the same, he would not have separated from the Church, since he had the Works of S. Athanasius, the Sermons of Theophilus and S. Cyril, which ought to have encouraged him to resist the Error of Eutyches. He advertises Proterius, That he must carefully avoid speaking any thing, which may come near the Opinions of Nestorius; and that in teaching the People, he must let them know, That he vents nothing new, but teaches what the Holy Fathers have unanimously preached, and to convince them of it, it is not sufficient to say so, but it is convenient to prove it, by bringing and explaining their Authorities, to which he may join his Letter.

In fine, S. Leo says, That he applies himself to Antiquity, as well in Matters of Discipline as Faith, and for this reason it is, That he hath opposed them, who through their Ambition would rob the Church of Alexandria of her Privileges, and Metropolitans of their Rights. He advises Proterius to uphold the Customs which were in use in the time of his Predecessors; To keep the Bishops, who according to the ancient Canons, are subject to the Church of Alex∣andria, close to their Duty, by obliging them to be present at his Synod at the appointed times, or when there is some Business that requires their presence. This Letter is of March 10. 454. It hath never been published.

To this Letter the Epistle of Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, to S. Leo touching the Feast of Easter in the year 455. is joined. He was of a contrary Judgment to the Pope, who at length yielded to the Opinion of Proterius. Those that are curious Inquirers after the Ac∣counts which were then made, to find out the day on which Easter was to be kept every year, may find much satisfaction in it. About the end, he cautions S. Leo, That he should not venture to have this Letter turned into Latin, because it is very hard for Men that do not understand it well, to express exactly, in Latin, a Matter so hard and intricate as this is.

The Hundred and Fourth Letter to the Emperor Marcian, is of the same date with the Hundred and Third to Proterius, and contains almost the same things. S. Leo therein com∣mends Proterius, because he had approved his Letter to Flavian. He says, That some Here∣ticks had falsified it, and desires the Emperor to cause it to be turned into Greek and sent to Alexandria.

The Hundred and Fifth to the same bears date the 15th. of April following. In it he pro∣mises the Emperor to be reconciled to Anatolius, provided that he would desist from his Pre∣tensions. He desires his Majesty to banish Eutyches further, because he divulged his Doctrines in the place of his Exile. He thanks him for sending a Person to Alexandria, that he might inform himself exactly of the time, when Easter must be celebrated.

The Letter of Anatolius to S. Leo is taken out of Holstenius's Collection. In it he com∣plains that S. Leo had given over writing to him, and declares, That the Letters which he had written to others about him, had increased his trouble. He tells him, That he desired nothing more than to give him satisfaction, and that having seen a Letter which S. Leo wrote to the Emperor, he had immediately performed what he desired of him for the good of the Church; That he had preferred Aetius to an honourable Office among the Clergy, tho' not to be an Arch-Deacon, as appears by the following Letter; That he had expelled Andrew out of the Church, altho' he had made him Arch-Deacon, for no reason but that he came to that Dignity, by reason of his Age; That he had also put from the Communion of the Church, those who had been of the Eutychian Party, altho' they had satisfied him by their Subscripti∣ons and Declarations, and that he would not receive them, till he had known from him, what he ought to do. He earnestly entreats him to write to him. Lastly, he protests, that as to the Dignity, which the Council of Chalcedon hath granted him in favour of the See of the Church of Constantinople, he had not any hand in it, but it was the Clergy of Constantinople which desired it, and the Eastern Bishops, who had caused it to be ordained; that as for him∣self he had not concerned himself in it, but had always lived▪ in such a manner, as could give

no just Cause to think that he was ambitious or forward in such Attempts. The Body of this Letter is written in Latin, but the words are in the Greek Character.

S. Leo answers this Epistle in his Hundred and Sixth, and tells Anatolius, That it is not for lack of kindness, that he had desisted from writing to him, but being obliged to oppose him∣self against those things which he acted contrary to the Canons, he had received no Answer from him. He commends him, that he hath composed the Business about Aetius, and turned Andrew out of the Arch-Deaconry. He informs him, That he may receive him, and ordain him Priest, yea him, and all that have been engaged in the Eutychian Party, if they do pro∣fess publickly, in writing, that they condemn the Heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius, but that he ought not to make any Person Arch-Deacon, who hath ever been engaged in those Sects. He was not at all satisfied with the Excuse made by Anatolius, about the Prerogatives given to the See of Constantinople, by the Council of Chalcedon; for he says, That the Clergy could not do it without his consent. Notwithstanding, he was glad to see him so well disposed to give over that Enterprise, and exhorts him to do it forthwith. This Letter is dated May 29. 454.

The Hundred and Seventh Letter to the Emperor Marcian is upon the same Subject. He shews him, That he hath returned an Answer to Anatolius; That this Bishop ought to attri∣bute the Interruption of Commerce by Letters, which had been between them, to nothing but his own silence; That he did not doubt, but that it was the Emperor who had disposed him thus to amend himself; That he doth not reconcile himself to him but upon Condition that he abandons his Pretensions, which he hath contrary to the Canons of the Church, and will be watchful to discover close Hereticks; that he may drive them out by the Assistance of the Imperial Anthority, that it is easie, by that means, to extinguish the other Heresies entirely, since Palaestine was already returned, and Aegypt began to acknowledge him; That he was much pleased with that which he had done in favour of Aetius, and desires him to hearken to what Julian hath to communicate to him. Lastly, he requires him to prohibit the Monk Carosus from dispersing his Error in Constantinople as he hath done.

He wrote also another Letter to the Emperor at the same time, in which he thanks him for the Inquiry he had made, to let him know Easter-day. He assures him, That he had received Proterius's Letters, and that he will follow his Judgment, altho' he is not perswaded of the Reason, yet for Peace and Unity sake. Lastly, he prays the Emperor, That the * 1.132 Receivers of the Church of Constantinople might not give up their Accounts before the secular Judges, but leave it according to the ancient Custom to the Bishop's Court.

The Hundred and Ninth Letter is a circular Letter to the Bishops of France and Spain, in which he gives them notice, That the Feast of Easter, in the next year, shall be kept upon the 22d. of April. It is dated July 28. Anno. 454.

The Hundred and Tenth is written to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem. In it he declares his Joy, that this Bishop, having condemned the Error of Eutyches, was again settled in his See. He exhorts him to defend the Faith of the Church about the Incarnation, of which the Holy Places, which are in his Bishoprick, are a convincing Proof. He explains the Catholick Do∣ctrine, and tells him, That he will find it proved by Testimonies of Holy Scripture, in his Letter to Flavian. This Letter bears date September 4th.

The Hundred and Eleventh Letter is an Answer to Julian's, wherein he had sent him the News of Dioscorus's death. He tells him, That he hopes that it will render the Conversion of many more easie. He commands him to manage the Inclinations of the Emperor well, and to instruct him, what he may do for the good of the Church, because he knew that this Prince is perswaded, That he never acts so much for the good of his Empire, as when he procures the good of the Church. He puts Julian in mind to let him know, what condi∣tion the Church of Alexandria is in.

The Hundred and Twelfth, Hundred and Thirteenth and Hundred and Fourteenth Let∣ters of S. Leo are written in 455. In the first he thanks the Emperor Marcian for the care he had taken, to have it plainly settled on what day Easter ought to be celebrated; and assures him, That he submits to the Judgment of the Bishop of Alexandria, and that he hath fol∣lowed it in the Letters which he hath written to all the Bishops of the West, to give them no∣tice of the day of that Feast. He also thanks the Emperor for expelling Carosus and Doro∣thaeus from their Monasteries. In the second, he makes answer to Julian's Letter, who had written to him, That Carosus had professed the Orthodox Faith, but was yet at variance with Anatolius; That John was sent into Aegypt to restore the Faith, and settle Peace there. He desires Julian to let him know what success he shall have there, and tells him, That he is much troubled for the condition of the Bishop of Antioch, if what his Accusers say, be true. He adds, That he hath so great confidence in the Piety of the Emperor, that he doth not doubt but that he will hinder the establishment of Heresie. In the 114th. he exhorts Anatolius to labour with all his Might to extinguish the remainders of the Heresie. The last of these Letters is dated March 13.

We have nothing more of that year nor the next, because Rome having been taken by the Vandals, S. Leo was so busy about the Affairs of his own Church, he had no leasure to take care of others. Besides, that in the trouble he then was, it was hard to send or receive Let∣ters

from distant Countries. But as soon as he began to be a little at rest, he then began afresh to give Marks of his Pastoral Care and Vigilance over the Church.

The Hundred and Fifteenth Letter to the Emperor Leo, dated June 9. Anno 457. is the first. He prays the Emperor to protect the Faith, and not permit the Authority of the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon to be questioned, particularly at Alexandria, where, according to the account he had received from Anatolius, it was strongly opposed.

To him also he directs the following Letter of July 11. S. Leo praises him, because he was troubled to see the Church of Alexandria reduced to so lamentable a Condition through the Outrage of the Hereticks; That the Emperor Marcian was taken out of the World, just when he was using Remedies for it; but (God be praised) he had left a Son, from whom the Orthodox Religion might expect the same protection; That he had written to him for that reason; That he ought to join with him in endeavouring to maintain the Decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, and prays him to let him know what he could do with him there∣upon.

The Hundred and Seventeenth is of the same date; In it he tells Julian, That he wondred he did not write to him; but being informed, by Anatolius's Letter, that he was gone to Alexandria, he had written to the Emperor to pray him to restore Peace to that Church; and to Anatolius, that he should use his Interest with the Emperor upon that Subject. He commands him to join his Sollicitations with Anatolius, to uphold the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and ordain an Orthodox Bishop at Alexandria in the place of Proterius.

The Hundred and Eighteenth Letter, dated Aug. 23, 457. is directed to Basilius Bishop of Antioch. In the beginning he complains, That this Bishop had not given him notice of his Ordination: He exhorts him to join with him, and other Bishops that are Orthodox, to defend the Catholick Faith with Courage, because he is perswaded, That the Emperor and Lords of the Court will not undertake to innovate any thing, when they see the Orthodox Bi∣shops firm and united.

In the Hundred and Nineteenth Letter he exhorts Euxithius Bishop of Thessalonica, and Ju∣venal Bishop of Jerusalem, to be resolute, and not suffer that any Council be assembled to disannul what hath been done in the Council of Chalcedon. He sent these Letters to Julian and Aetius, that they might deliver them to the Metropolitans to whom they are directed, and by that means all the Bishops may know it. This appears by the 120th. and 121st. Letters.

In the Hundred and Twenty Second Letter he congratulates the Emperor Leo, that he de∣clared himself for the Council of Chalcedon, and exhorts him to further the Peace of the Church. This Letter is dated Sept. 1. 457.

He comforts the Bishops of Aegypt, who had been banished from their Churches for the Orthodox Doctrine in the following Letter. This is of Octob. 11.

The Hundred and Twenty Fourth Letter is to Anatolius. After he hath thanked him for his care in writing to him the News, he exhorts him to oppose the Temptations of Hereticks vigorously, but he reproves him for suffering the Clergy of Constantinople to have Com∣merce with the Enemies of the Catholick Faith. This Letter is dated the 11th. or 14th. of October.

In the Hundred and Twenty Fifth Letter to the Emperor Leo, he endeavours to shew the Emperor, That he ought not to revive again the Questions about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and that he ought to hold to the decision of the Council of Chalcedon. He exhorts him to apply Remedies to the Distempers of the Church of Alexandria, and not suffer the Ene∣mies of the true Faith to thrust themselves into the Government of that Church; That having receiv'd Petitions from both Hereticks and Catholicks, he easily discerned to which of them he ought to lend his Assistance, since on the Hereticks part there is nothing but Violence and Sacrilege, who have put to death an Innocent Bishop, casting his Ashes into the Air, overturn∣ing the Altars, laying open the Mysteries to Parricides and Wicked Men, casting down the Oblation, and destroying the Holy Oyl; That after all this they had the boldness to demand a Council; That the Emperor ought not to suffer this Impudence, but rescue the Church of Alexandria from the Oppression in which it was; That he had sent him a Letter treating of Matters of Faith, to instruct him fully in the Doctrine of the Church. Lastly, he complains, That some of the Clergy in Constantinople held Heretical Opinions. He accuses Anatolius of Negligence in not punishing them, and exhorts the Emperor to banish them out of the City. He recommends to him the Bishop Julian, and Aetius the Priest. This Letter is dated Decemb. 1.

In the Hundred and Twenty Sixth Letter he desires Anatolius to join with him in per∣swading the Emperor to maintain the Decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, oppose the He∣reticks, and restore the Peace of the Church of Alexandria. He tells him, That he was very Joyful to hear, that there were but four Bishops of Aegypt who were guilty of the same Crime with Timotheus, and who were of his Party; That he must do his endeavour to help the other Bishops of Aegypt, who are under Persecution, and assist those who are withdrawn to Constantinople; That their Presence is very necessary to divert the Emperor from calling a new Synod. He admonishes him not to suffer Atticus and Andrew, two Clergy-men of Con∣stantinople,

to persist in their speaking against the Council of Chalcedon. He likewise makes smart Reflections upon him for suffering them.

In the One hundred twenty seventh he comforts the Orthodox Bishops of Aegypt, who had retired to Constantinople. Anatolius bore the Reflections which S. Leo made upon him, with a sort of Disturbance. Atticus the Priest, whom S. Leo had branded, sought to justify himself, by sending some Writings, which he pretended to be Orthodox, but S. Leo was not satisfied with that, but insisted upon it, that he would plainly condemn the Error and Person of Eutyches, and sign the Profession of Faith made by the Council of Chalcedon. This Letter is dated in March 458.

The One hundred twenty ninth Letter of S. Leo to Nicetas, or rather to Niceas, Bishop of Aquileia, is dated March 21. in the same Year. The First and Principal Question which he treats of in this Letter is this, viz. Whether those Women, who in the Captivity or Absence of their Husbands, whom they thought dead, having been married to others, ought to return to their First Husbands, if perchance they return again? He answers, That they are obliged to it, if their First Husbands demand them again, although their Second Husbands have not sinned in marrying them. And he at the same Time orders, That those Women be Excom∣municated, who would not return to them.

The Second Question is concerning those who have eaten Meats offer'd to Idols, being urg'd to it through Hunger, or constrain'd through Fear. He says, That they must be cleansed by Penance, which ought to be considered not so much in respect of the length of Time, as of the Sincerity of Grief. He orders, That they do the same to those who have been baptized a Second Time, either by Force, or because they have been engag'd in the Heretical Factions. He wisely observes, That the Time for Penance ought to be order'd according to the Devotion, Age or Profession of the Penitents. In fine, as to those Persons who have been baptized but once, but by the Hereticks, he says, That they ought to be Confirm'd by the Imposition of Hands, with Invocation of the Holy Spirit. Sola invocatione Spiritus Sancti, per Impositionem Manuum Confirmandi.

In the One hundred and thirtieth Letter he comforts the Bishops of Aegypt, who were retir'd to Constantinople, and advises them not to suffer those Matters to be disputed afresh, which were decided in the Council of Chalcedon. This Letter is dated March 21.

The One hundred thirty first is of the same Date. He exhorts the Clergy of Constantinople to continue stedfast in the Faith, and separate themselves from the Hereticks; and he admo∣nishes them, That they ought not to suffer Atticus and Andrew to remain in the Church, if they will not make Profession in Writing of the Faith of the Council of Chal∣cedon.

The next Day he wrote to the Emperor the One hundred thirty and second Letter, in which he declareth to him, That he ought not to suffer the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon to be brought under Examination a second Time; That he could neither Communicate with Hereticks, nor depart from the Decisions of the Synod; That he will send the Legates of the Holy See, as he hath desired; That he doth it not to enter into Dispute about that which hath already been decided, but only to clear it, and make it known.

In the One hundred thirty third Letter, to the same Emperor, dated Aug. 17. He writes to him, That he had sent Two Bishops, to require him, in his Name, to take Care of the Peace of the Church, maintain the Faith, and not suffer the Definitions of the Council of Chalcedon to be called in question. He enlarges chiefly upon the latter, shewing, that if once it be allow'd to dispute continually, and use Logical and Rhetorical Arguments in the Explication of the Mysteries there will never be an end. That Jesus Christ hath evidently prov'd that he would not have these Arts made use of, since he had not chosen Philosophers or Orators to preach his Gospel, but poor Fishermen, lest the heavenly Doctrine, which is so powerful, should be thought to need the Help of Humane Eloquence: That the Arguments of Rheto∣rick appear so much the more, by how much the Things that are treated on are the more obscure and uncertain, and accounted true because they are defended with more Wit and Eloquence, but that the Gospel of Jesus Christ hath no need of that Artifice, because the Doctrine of Truth is clear in it self, and that no Man seeks what is pleasing to the Ear, when he desires only to know what he ought to believe. Next he explains, in a few Words, the Doctrine establish'd in the Council of Chalcedon. He bewails the Outrage committed against the Person of the Bishop of Alexandria. He requires no Punishment, but hopes that the Authors of it would amend, and suffer Penance for their Sin. In fine, he recommends to him his Legates, which he sent to him, not to enter any Dispute, but to represent to him what must be done for the Maintenance of the Faith, and Restauration of the Church's Peace. He prays him to send an Orthodox Bishop to Alexandria, and re-settle the Bishops of Aegypt, which have been forc'd away by the Hereticks. This excellent Letter is one of those which F. Quesnel hath lately publish'd. Prudens * 1.133, Bishop of Troyes, hath copied out a part of it in his Book against Joannes Scotus. Vigilius and Pelagius II. have also cited it, and Facundus hath produced a Passage of it.

The One hundred thirty fourth Letter is a Discourse against the Error of Eutyches. S. Leo relates therein first of all the Errors of the Hereticks about the Mystery of the Incarnation. He proves, That the Council of Nice hath confounded them altogether. He demonstrates,

That it was necessary for the Reconciliation of Man to God, that Jesus Christ, should be God and Man, and the Divine and Humane Nature should be united in one Person. He proves afterwards by many Reasons, confirmed by Testimonies of Holy Scriptures, That these Two Natures are really and truly in Jesus Christ: This, in the last Place, he makes good by the Authority of the Holy Fathers, of whom he produces many Passages. In a Word, he proves and explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in a clear, noble and sublime manner, without involving himself in School Subtleties.

The One hundred thirty Fifth Letter is written to Neonas Bishop of Ravenna (for so it ought to be read, and not Legio.) F. Quesnel thinks it was written in the Year 458 a 1.134. although it be dated in the Consulship of Marcian. S. Leo, in this Letter, resolves a difficult Question, which had been proposed in a Synod, viz. Where they who were carried Captive in their Infancy, before they had any Use of Reason, not knowing whether they have been baptized or no, must be baptized? He concludes, That they need not fear to baptize them, since they have no proofs that they have been, but if they know that they have been baptized, though it were by Hereticks, they must not be then baptized. This Letter shews, That Bap∣tism upon condition was not in use at that Time.

In the One hundred thirty sixth Letter, directed to the Bishops of Campania, Picenum and Samnium, S. Leo reproves those Persons who baptized without Necessity upon the Festivals consecrated to the Martyrs. He forbids the Celebration of Baptism upon any other Days besides the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost, at left if no Danger or Peril oblige to a speedy Admini∣stration of that Sacrament. He also opposes the Practice of some, who caused Offenders to recite publickly the Sins which they had committed, and says, That it is sufficient to discover them in private Confessions to the Priests; and although it seems to be a commendable Action that Men should expose themselves to Shame through fear of God's Judgment, yet since it is pos∣sible to have Sins, which they that have committed them dare not often even publish them; therefore this Custom must be entirely abolish'd, for fear of frighting Men from the Remedy of Penance, lest they should discover those Crimes to their Enemies, for which they may be punish'd by Civil Justice. It is enough to confess his Sin first to God, and then to the Priest, who ought to pray to God for the Remission of the Sins of Penitents, that by this means Sinners will be more easily drawn to Repentance, when they are sure that the Sins, of which they confess themselves guilty shall not be made publick. This Letter bears date March 6. 459.

In the One hundred thirty seventh Letter S. Leo congratulates the Emperor Leo for having put Timotheus Aelurus out of the See of Alexandria, and exhorts him to take care that some Orthodox Person, worthy of that See, be chosen into his Place, assuring him, that though Timotheus should return from his Errors, and profess the Catholick Faith, yet his Crimes ren∣der him unworthy of being restored. This Letter is dated June 460.

The One hundred thirty eighth Letter, of the same Date, is written to Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople. He complains that he permitted Timotheus to come to Constantinople. He advises Gennadius not to communicate with him, and to put him out of all Hopes of recover∣ing his Bishoprick, by ordaining some Person of Merit in his Place.

This was put in execution, for a little after Timotheus, surnamed Solofaciolus [or Basilicus,] who was an Orthodox Person, was put into the See of Alexandria. S. Leo wrote to him, to congratulate his Election, and to exhort him to oppose the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. This Letter is the One hundred thirty ninth, and dated April 18. 460. He wrote also the One hundred and fortieth Letter, at the same Time, to the Clergy of Alexandria; in which he exhorts them to Peace, and encourages them to maintain the Faith which had been taught them by the Orthodox Bishops of Alexandria, without any Variation, For the Truth, saith he, which is Simple and One, receives no Change. He admonishes him to bring over and receive to Repentance those who are in an Error.

S. Leo a little after (viz. September 1.) congratulates the Bishops of Aegypt, that they had an Orthodox Patriarch, and exhorts them to labour after a re-union of Minds, and the Con∣version of those who were engaged in Heresy. This Letter is the One hundred forty first, and the last of S. Leo's Letters, in this new Edition, augmented with Thirty Letters.

S. Leo hath written many other Letters besides; Pelagius in his One hundred and eleventh Letter, to the Bishops of Istria, cites Two Fragments of a Letter of S. Leo, to Basil: One of these Fragments is found in the One hundred thirty and third Letter, to the Emperor Leo, the other is not to be met with; so that this must be either that S. Leo hath repeated the

same thing in Two Letters, or Pelagius is mistaken in his Quotation. The same Pope cites also a Fragment of a Letter of S. Leo's, to the Archdeacon Aetius, which is not to be found among those we have.

S. L•••• had given his Legates some Memorandums in Writing, when he sent them to the Council of Chalcedon, of which Boniface read a part in the Sixteenth Action of that Council. F. Quesnel hath collected these Fragments, at the End of the Letters, and joyned to them a Letter of Julian Bishop of Coos to the Emperor Leo; in which this Bishop answers the Emperor, who had desired Advice from him and other Bishops about the preferring of Timo∣theus, surnamed Aelurus, and about the Council of Chalcedon: He answers him, I say, That Timotheus ought not to be accounted a Bishop, and that he ought to be expell'd from the See of Alexandria, which he had invaded, and that he ought to keep to the Decision of the Council of C••aloedou, and maintain its Decrees.

There is mention made in S. Leo's own Letters, and some other Records, of several other Letters written by or to S. Leo, of which we have no Fragments. F. Quesnel hath made an exact Catalogue of them, at the End of his Notes upon S. Leo's Letters, to which we may have recourse▪ There also we may see the Inscriptions of Nineteen or Twenty Letters of S. Leo, of which we have not one Word more remaining.

He hath left out a Letter which was heretofore reckon'd the Eighty eighth of S. Leo's Letters, to the Bishops of Germany and France, touching the Office of the Chorepiscopi; but he hath proved in a Dissertation, purposely made on that Subject, that that Letter is certainly supposi∣titious a 1.135 and taken out of the Canons of the Second Council of Sevil, held anno 619. which forbids▪ in the same Terms those Offices to Priests which this Canon does to the Chore∣piscopi; neither hath he ranked in the Number of S. Leo's Epistles, that which was formerly counted the Ninety Sixth Letter, because 'tis not this Pope's, but a Synodical Letter, written in the Name of S. Leo * 1.136 Bishop of Bourges, Victurius † 1.137 Bishop of Mans, Eustochius * 1.138 Bishop of Tours, and some other Bishops in the Churches of the Third Province of Lyons (a), which is that of Tours.

From the Letters we will come to his Sermons, but we must first examine the Conjectures upon which M. Anthelmi grounds himself, in attributing them to S. Prosper. The First is the Likeness of Style, which he pretends is to be found between the Writings of S. Prosper and the Sermons, which are said to be S. Leo's. He thinks that he meets in several Places of them not only with Words but also Phrases, Sentences, Expressions, and particular Modes of Speech proper to S. Prosper, and produces many Examples, which he says are sufficient to determine the Point. The Second Proof is from an ancient Manuscript of Nine hundred Years old, written in the Saxon Character, which was heretofore in the Library of M. Thuanus, and at present is in M. Colbert's; where the Anniversary of the Fourth Year of the Exaltation of S. Leo ••ears the Name of S. Prosper, according to an Ancient Inscription. There are also in the Manuscript two other Sermons attributed to S. Leo; the one is of Collection and Alms-gi∣ving, and the other upon the Fast of the Tenth Month, which are the Tenth and Sixteenth in F. Quesnel's Edition of S. Leo's Sermons. The old Title of these Sermons doth not carry the Name of S. Leo in the Manuscript, but it hath been added by a later Hand: From whence he concludes, That these Two Sermons as well as the former, are S. Prosper's, and not S. Leo's. * 1.139

He brings for a Third Proof▪ That neither G•…•…dius nor Pope Gelasius, who speak of S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, do ••ake the least mention of his Sermons, no more than Anastasius Biblio∣thecarius, who speaks of the Actions of this Pope. It is said also, That in those Times the Bishops preached Sermons made by others: That Gennadius assures us, That Salvian had com∣posed many for Bishops, and says the same thing of Honoratus. That if Bishops did make use of the Sermons of a Priest and * 1.140 Bishop of Marseilles, and desired them of 'em, 'tis very credi∣ble that they should apply 'emselves to S. Leo (whose Reputation was very great) for them. Now S. Leo being busied with so many Affairs▪ 'tis not likely that he could compose them himself, and if so, who should he chuse to do it for him but S. Prosper, who was his Secreta∣ry, and was sufficiently qualified to make good Sermons? And that it was these he sent to the Bishops under the Name of S. Leo. This is the Opinion of the Abbot Anthelmi upon the Sermons which bear the Name of S. Leo, and the Conjectures upon which he Builds it.

But altho' I have no small esteem of the worth of this Author, yet I cannot but say, that this whole frame appears to me a mere Chimaera, and the proofs which he brings are extream∣ly weak; for what probability is there, that other Bishops should address themselves to S. Leo to make Sermons for them? It is visible enough, That the Bishops of Rome have other∣wise been consulted about the affairs of the Church, but whoever said, that they were desired to make Sermons? Is there any example of it? Salvian made Sermons for some Bishops, and Honoratus's Homilies were used by others, but what is this to the Bishop of Rome? M. An∣thelmi supposes that he was burden••d with so many affairs, and incumbred with so much busi∣ness, that he had not leisure to write Letters. And is it Credible▪ That they did address them∣selves to him to have Sermons? Or, That he should contrive to have them made and publish∣ed in his Name? Further, it is discernable, That S. Leo's Sermons were composed by S. Leo for his own People, and Preached in his own Church a 1.141 'Twas only for S. Leo that they were made, and for no other Bishops. But say some, Sozomen assures us in his Ecclesiastical Hi∣story, l. 7. c. 19. That in the Church of Rome, neither the Bishop, nor any in his stead, Preached to the People, as if this remark of Sozomen ought to be followed. Do they not know, that even they, that maintain this▪ as M. Valesius hath done, own that S. Leo did not conform to that Custom. So clear it is, That he Preached himself to the People: But yet it is not probable, that what Sozomen says in that place, was ever true, or he must be understood in another sence, for who can imagine, that in so flourishing and orderly a Church as that of Rome was, the Bishop should neglect his principal Duty, and suffer his Flock to be without Feeding? Besides, S. Leo tells us in several places of his Sermons b 1.142 That he did nothing new in Preaching, but followed the settled Custom, and in the Eighty Second Sermon he ob∣serves particularly, that his Predecessor S. Sixtus had made some publick Instructions. And do we not learn from S. Ambrose, that Liberius * 1.143 made a Sermon upon the occasion of Mar∣cellina's Vowing Virginity in the Church of S. Peter on the Feast of the Nativity? This is sufficient to make it appear, that Sozomen's Observation is false, or ought to be understood in another sence. But however that be, no Man dare extend it as far as S. Leo's time, because 'tis manifest beyond all contradiction, that the Sermons which bear his Name, were composed for the People of Rome, and Preached before them. So that there is nothing more Fictitious, than the System of M. Abbot Anthelmi? But perhaps tho' S. Leo Preached them, yet he did not make▪ them himself? Could a Bishop in so much business as he was, have time to make his Sermons? Is it not more likely that S. Prosper made them? This supposition is not so absurd as the former, but yet not much better grounded? Why might not S. Leo have had time enough to compose such short Sermons as his are? The chief Duty of a Bishop is to instruct his People, and it-being especially appropriated to him, as S. Leo himself saith in his Letters to Maximus and Theodoret, it is evident, that he ought to preferr this Employment before all others. S. Leo was Eloquent, and spoke readily, he needed no very long time to make his Sermons. He Preached apparently without much preparation: Afterwards, They wrote his Sermons either in the time he Preached them, or he dictated them himself. But supposing that

S. Leo had caused them to be made, he did certainly make use of some other Pen, than S. Prosper's, for they are of a more sublime Stile than the Works of that Author. The Stile of this last is Plain and Doctrinal, not at all Florid, as the Sermons and Letters, of S. Leo are. That Jingling and Rhiming Cadence so proper to S. Leo, is very rarely to be found in S. Prosper. This it is that we must judge the likeness of Stile by, and not because the same Words, or Thoughts, are by chance found in Two Authors. And yet this is all that proves the parallels of M. Abbot Anthelmi. And if any Persons will give themselves the trouble to compare the places, which he alledges, they'll see that there is no likeness of Stile between the passages of one Author, and the other, altho' they meet with the same words. And further, Al∣tho' there were some little conformity of Stile between the Writings of S. Prosper, and S. Leo, yet have we not much greater reason to say, That S. Prosper hath imitated his Master whom be often heard speak and preach, whose Sermons he read, and perhaps copied out to keep them, In Scrinio Romanae Ecclesiae, In the Registry of the Roman Church, it being supposed that he was a Notary of the Roman Church?

As to the Saxon MS. as it contains no more than Three Sermons, whatsoever Authority we allow it, it ought to make us doubt of no more than Three Sermons, for this doubt ought not to reach to others, which are always attributed to S. Leo in all the MSS. and never to S. Prosper. But notwithstanding these Three Sermons are not to be found, save in this MS. on∣ly, where the first is attributed to S. Prosper, yet the Stile and Matter do evince that they are S. Leo's, and cannot be S. Prosper's. This, is the Judgment, which the Learned M. Faber; whose is this MS. gives of it, and which he sent to Vossius Provost of Tongres to add them to his Edition of S. Leo. See what this great Man saith in his Letter to Vossius; p. 113. and 114. of his Works, Hearing that Michael Sonnius Bookseller hath a Correspondence with you by Letters, and that he expects shortly your Edition of S. Leo's Works, I thought that I might do you a kindness in sending you Three Sermons of this Father Copied out of an Ancient MS. that you might add them, if they have escaped your Observation. I have sent you them at first, that you might see whether they are among those that you have. And since you have made Answer to Son∣nius, that they are not there, I do send you them so much the more freely, because I observe in them, as I think the Eloquence of that Father, the roundness of his Periods, and that compact Stile, which is peculiar to him. That which is attributed to S. Prosper, doth evidently belong to the same Author as the others, as is proved by the Agreement in the Stile, and because he speaks of himself as Bishop of Rome, for tho' indeed some say, that S. Leo made use of S. Prosper, yet I shall never be persuaded, that so Eloquent a Pope as S. Leo was, hath Craved the Pen of another, and Preached to his People the Sermons that another made. M. Anthelmi must pardon me, if I preferr M. Faber's Judgment before his, and if without relying upon the Authority of that MS. we acknowledge the first Sermon to be S. Leo's. But why doth it bear S. Prosper's Name in that Ancient MS? Do we not know, that there is a great confusion in the most Ancient MSS. about the Titles of Sermons, and that often they are very faulty? Witness the Two Ancient MSS. a Thousand Years old, of which F. Mabillon speaks in the Preface to S. Maximus's Homilies, Mus. Ital. T. 1. P. 4. where the Homilies of S. Maximus bear the Name of S. Austin. We need not then wonder, if a Sermon of S. Leo's carries the Name of S. Prosper in a MS. of 900 Years old. And yet this doth not prove that it is this Fathers, nor that he hath put it under his own Name, because it was known even then, that S. Prosper made S. Leo's Sermons, or that it was Copied out of a Manuscript, wherein the Sermons of S. Leo were attributed to S. Prosper. M. Abbot Anthelmi owns, That in the time of S. Prosper, the Sermons which were made for S. Leo, did bear the Name of that Pope. Why then was the Name of S. Prosper affixed to them Three Hundred Years after? Whence did he that wrote the Manuscript learn that they were S. Prosper's? Why had not all his other Sermons the same luck? What necessity is there for amending all other Manuscripts by this, wherein there are no more than Three of S. Leo's Sermons? The Transcriber might easily mistake, he might Copy the first Sermon from a Manuscript which had been S. Prosper's, or written by S. Prosper, and take the Name of him that wrote the Manuscript, or the Person's, whose it was, for the Name of the Author. He might find this Sermon at the end of S. Prosper's Works, and so attribute it of his own head to S. Prosper? However that he, it often happens, that we find in the most Ancient Manuscripts the Sermons of S. Maximus, and S. Caesarius, under the Name of S. Austin, and Ambrose, which in our time have been restored to their true Authors, upon the account of the mere agreement of Stile with the other Sermons of S. Maximus, and Caesarius, and without the Authority of any Manuscript? And why may we not do the same to the Ser∣mon of S. Leo? A Negative Argument taken from the silence of Gennadius, Gelasius, and Anastasius, is of little consequence. Gennadius often passes over in silence many excellent pieces of those Authors of whom he speaks. Gelasius had no design to speak of his Sermons, and Anastasius never uses to mention the Writings of Popes. We must then leave S. Leo in possession of his Sermons.

The Four First are Discourses upon his own Promotion to the See of the Roman Church. The First was Preached, according to some, a Year after, according to others, on the Day of his Ordination, but it is more probable, that it was on the Octave after it, for he speaks of his Election as lately past, and of some time that came between, and yet he signifies, that he did not Preach it upon the same Day that he was Ordained, but recurrente per suum ordi∣nem

Die, quo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…s Episto•…•… offici•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…re principiu•…•…, The same Day •…•…ing in its course, on which the Lord was pleased to give a beginning to my Episcopal Charge, which agrees very well to the •…•…e. He gives God thanks in this Sermon, for the favours which he hath received of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and more especially, That he had permitted him to return again to Rome, after a long absence, to Govern that Church. He declares to his People the grateful sense he had of their good-will to him, in chusing him their Bishop, beyond his de∣sert. He desires them to help him by their Prayers, that he may govern the Church in Peace. He assures them, That he will always have that Day in great Honour, in which he was ad∣vanced to his See, because, altho he ought to tremble by reason of his unworthiness, yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was obliged to rejoyce in the favour which God had shewn him, hoping, that he, who hath permitted him to be put into a Charge of so great Weight, will help him to undergo it, and give him strength that he may not •…•…t under the Burden of that Dignity. Lastly, He testi∣fies the Joy that he hath to see the Bishops his Brethren assembled, and makes them to hope, that S. Peter is with them, and that he governs that Church in the Person of his Successor.

In the Second Discourse Preached a Year after his Ordination, he says, That tho' all Bishops ought to give God the Honour of their Ministry, yet he had greater reason than any Body else to Attribute it wholly to the Divine Mercy, when he considers on the one hand his own Weakness, and on the other, the Excellency of his Ministry. That the very thoughts of it made him tremble, because nothing is more to be feared, than Labour by the Weak, g•…•… Dignity by Mean Persons, and an Office by Men of no desert. Labor fragili, sublimit•…•… ••••••∣mist, dig•…•… non •…•…l. That nevertheless he doth not despair, nor is faint-hearted, be∣cause he puts his Trust in him who works in, and by Man. That the Psalm, which they are about to sing, is very proper to humble 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop, and to give all the Glory to Jesus Christ; that it speaks of Melchisedeck an Eternal Priest, whose Parents are not known, which is a Type of the New Law, and the practice of the Church, which bestows not the Priesthood upon Persons of Quality, or of a particular Family, nor by Succession, but chuses such Men as the Holy Spirit hath fitted for it, insomuch that it is not the Prerogative of Birth that qua∣lifies for the Sacerdotal Unction, but 'tis the Heavenly Grace that makes Bishops. That the Church is still governed by Jesus Christ, who hath given to S. Peter the Apostolick Power. That that Apostle never forsakes his Church, but continues to be the Foundation of it; that his Authority and Power still lives in his Successors, and that it is to him that that little good which he doth in his Charge is to be attributed. That it is S. Peter also that he ought to Ex∣tol upon that Day, that it is the Feast of that Apostle; That the Bishops his Brethren were assembled not so much to Honour him, as S. Peter, who is not only Bishop of the Roman Church, but the Head of all the Churches in the World. Upon this Account he Exhorts the Christians of the Church of Rome to excel the Christians of all other Churches in the World in Vertue.

In the Third Discourse upon the same subject, after he hath shewn that all Christians ought to join in that Feast, because all are in some measure Priests to God, having received the Unction of the Holy Spirit, which makes them in a sence Priests, he speaks of the Preroga∣tives granted to S. Peter, and he adds, That the Right of that Power hath passed to all the Pri∣mates of the Church, but it is not without good reason, that God spake that to One, which belongs to all, because in chusing S. Peter to entrust with his Power, he hath made him the Prototype of all Bishops, and that this privilege granted to S. Peter meets in all those who Judge according to the Justice of that Apostle. That as all the Apostles and Bishops have received the Keys in the Person of S. Peter, so likewise it was for all the Apostles, and all the Bishops, that Jesus Christ hath Prayed, when he Prayed in particular for S. Peter, That his Faith fail not. Last∣ly, That S. Peter doth still take care of his Church, and tho' he doth not refuse to assist all the Christians in the World, yet it is to be believed, that he helps in a particular manner those of the Church of Rome, whom he hath preferred, and among whom his Body is Buried.

The Fourth Sermon is almost spent upon the same matters. After he hath proved, that all the good that we do, ought to be referred to God, he demonstrates, that the higher Men are promoted in the Church, the more they ought to fear; That all Bishops must give an Ac∣count of their Flocks; That all Churches having recourse to the Holy Apostolick See God requires of his Bishop such an Universal Charity, as he hath commanded S. Peter to have; That it would be impo•…•…le for him to discharge so great an Office well, and that he must in∣fallibly faint under the Burden, if Jesus Christ, who is an Eternal Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck, did not by his Divine Assistance continually aid and assist his Church. That this Anniversary Festival was not appointed for Pride, and Vanity, but to give Jesus Christ upon that Day the Honour of what he doth in the Person of his Minister, and to Celebrate the Memory of S. Peter, who never ceaseth to preside over the Holy See, and hath transmitted to his Successors the same Constancy which he hath received from Jesus Christ; That it is to him that we are obliged for that small Power which remains yet in the Church of Roman.

For, saith he, if God hath granted to the Martyrs as a recompence of their sufferings, and to make known their deserts: If he hath granted them, I say, an Ability to relieve Men in Distress, restore Health to the Sick, and cast out Devils out of the Bodies of such as are pos∣sessed, and to heal all manner of Diseases, who can be so Ignorant, or so Repining,

against the Glory of S. Peter, as to assert, That there is any part of the Church which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 governed by his Care, or strengthened by his Help?

He concludes, That if all the Church acknowledge it self obliged to S. Peter, the Roman Church ought more especially to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all ••••••ens of the respect which it hath for him, and make all thankful acknowledgments 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Bounty; That it is to this Apostle, that all the Honour and Respect which is this Day given to his Successor is directed and intended.

The Six following Sermons, are upon the Collections, or Contributions, which were made for the Poor upon some Sundays in the Year. They are very short, and much commend Alms-giving to us, and shew, that Gatherings for the Poor are derived to us from Apostolick Practice.

Next there are Nineteen Sermons upon the Fast of the Tenth Month, that is, upon the Ember-Week in the Month of September. He observes, That the Ember-Fasts were appointed to Teach us, That there is no time which ought not to be employed in the doing of Good Works; That this Fast in September was Instituted to give God thanks for the Fruits of the Earth, which they had just gathered in, and put us in mind of bestowing a part of those things which God hath given us, to the Poor, by abstaining from them our selves. That the New Law doth not discharge Men from the obligation of Fasting, but on the contrary, the Fasts which it prescribes, are of longer continuance than those of the Jews; That the Apo∣stles commanded it; That Fasting is of great advantage, but it ought to be accompanied with other Christian Vertues, and chiefly, Charity to our Neighbours; That Almsgiving, Prayer, and Fasting, are efficacious means to obtain remission of Sins, that when we give Alms, we lend our Money to God upon Usury; That such Usury is allowed, but 'tis not per∣mitted under any pretence whatsoever to lend to Men upon Usuries.

The Ten Sermons upon the Nativity, contain in them more of Doctrine, than Morality. In them he explains the Mystery of the Incarnation, confutes the Errors of the Hereticks who have opposed it, and adds to the Doctrine some Moral Considerations.

The Eight Sermons upon the Epiphany, contain some Considerations upon the circumstances of that Mystery.

In the Twelve Lent-Sermons he speaks of the Institution and Benefit of Fasting. He be∣lieves, That it was appointed principally to make Expiation for Sins, and do Penance for their Sins; That the Catechumens are obliged to it, as well as the Faithful; That Vertues must be joined with the due Observation of Fasting, and chiefly Almsgiving, and forgiveness of Enemies; That the whole Lent, and above all, the last Days of it, ought to be used to prepare our selves for the Feast of Easter.

In the Nineteen following Sermons he explains the Mystery, Fruit, Effects and Circum∣stances of the Passion of our Saviour.

He hath Two Sermons upon the Resurrection, Two upon the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and Three upon the Pentecost. In these last he proves the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, in the second he takes notice of some Circumstances of the Heresie of Manes.

The Four next Sermons are upon the Ember-days immediately after Whitsuntide, which fol∣lows that Feast, saith S. Leo, That the Graces bestowed by Virtue of those Mysteries may be preserved by that means. He speaks in these Sermons of the Benefit of Fast∣ing.

The Sermon upon the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul is looked upon, and that with a great deal of Reason as one of the best Sermons of S. Leo. He shews, in the beginning of it, That tho' this Feast be common to all the Churches in the World, it is reasonable that it should be celebrated with the greatest Solemnity in the City of Rome, where these two Apostles have manifested the Light of the Gospel, and where they received the Crown of Martyrdom. He describes the manner how Religion was first settled at Rome, and how that City, which was the chief City of the Empire, became the principal Church in the World. He extolls the Zeal of S. Peter who came thither first of all to preach the Faith. He equals S. Paul 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. Peter in desert, and says. That these two Apostles were as the two Eyes of the Body of the C•…•…, of which Jesus Christ is the Head; That their Call, Travails and End, made them e•…•…. He concludes saying, That he doth not doubt but that these two glorious Apo∣stles do endeavour, by their Prayers, to move our Lord to Mercy.

There was heretofore another Sermon upon this Feast, but F. Quesnel hath rejected it in his Appendix, because all of it, except the beginning, is taken out of the 3d. Sermon of S. Leo, ••••on the Anniversary of his advancement to the Popedom.

The following Sermon is on the Octavo of the preceding Feast, if we may believe the Title: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it appears by the Body of the Sermon, That it was made upon another Subject, and ap∣parently at another time after that Rome was freed from the Vandals. S. Leo therein condemns the Romani•…•… Superstition, who after they were delivered by the help of the Saints and the Mercy of God, did celebrate their * 1.144 Cirque-shews with a great deal of Pomp and State.

The Eighty Second Sermon is upon the Feast of the 7 Macchabees, which was joined to the ••east of the Dedication of some Roman Church. He exhorts the Faithful to imitate these Generous Martyrs in conquering the Persecutions of their Spiritual Enemies. He highly praises the Person that had built the Church, which was dedicated, and takes an occasion

to admonish the Christians, That they ought to build a Spiritual Temple in them∣selves.

S. Leo makes an Observation in the beginning of his Panegyrick of S. Lawrence, That the Martyrs are those, who have most exactly imitated the Charity of Jesus Christ; That our Lord in dying for us hath redeemed us, and that the Martyrs shew us by their death, that we ought not to fear Tortures; That among all the Martyrs, there is none that was more cruelly Persecuted, and shewed more Constancy than S. Lawrence; That as he was a Minister of the Sacraments, the Persecutor was animated by a double Motive, and put on by two diffe∣rent Passions. Being Covetous of Money, and an Enemy to the true Religion, his Avarice put him upon seizing the Treasures of the Church, and his Impiety upon destroying the Chri∣stian Religion. He could not make S. Lawrence deliver up the Treasures of the Church, but he must at the same time make him renounce his Religion. He demands of him then the place where the Treasures of the Church were? Our Saint shews him the Flocks of Poor which were maintained and cloathed out of the Church's Revenues. The Tyrant being dis∣appointed of his hopes, was all in a fury, and prepared the most cruel Torments; and after he had torn and mang••ed his Body with many Blows, he broiled his Body upon a Grid-Iron. But the more cruel his Tortures were, the greater was the Glory of this Martyr: So that Rome hath been as famous for the Martyrdom of S. Laurence, as Jerusalem for S. Stephen. We hope, adds this Father, that we shall be helped by his Prayers and his Intercession.

The Nine following Sermons are upon the Summer Ember-days. He exhorts the Faithful to Fasting, and shews the Advantage of it, and requires them always to join Fasting and Ab∣stinence together. He recommends the Love of God.

The Ninety Third Sermon is against the Error of Eutyches. The Ninety Fourth contains some Reflections upon the Mystery of the Incarnation upon the occasion of the Transfiguration of our Lord. In the Ninety Fifth he explains the Degrees of Blessedness, set down in the Sermon of Jesus Christ upon the Mount. The Ninety Sixth upon the Feast of S. Peter's Chair is newly published out of a Manuscript of the King's Library. It is S. Leo's Stile.

F. Quesnel observes, in this place, That there are many Prayers in the Missal and Roman Pontifical, which are S. Leo's Stile. In this number he puts the Prefaces of the Mass, and hence he adds two of them, the one for the Mass of Consecration of Bishops, the other for the Ordi∣nation of a Priest, with a Prayer of the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop, upon the reconciling of Penitents. These Pieces are taken out of the Pontifical, but 'tis not certain that they are S. Leo's.

The Appendix contains 3 Sermons falsly attributed to S. Leo, and 2 others made up of little pieces taken out of this Father. The 1st. is upon S. Vincent. The 2d. upon the Nati∣vity of our Lord. The 3d. upon the Ascension. The 4th. upon the Feast of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul; and the Last is a Treatise against the Errors of Eutyches and other Hereticks.

We do not here speak of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, the short Heads about Grace and Free-will, nor of the Epistle to Demetrias, Works which Father Quesnel hath put under S. Leo's Name in the beginning of his Works, because we will allow a Chapter by it self for the Examination, whether they are S. Leo's or not.

The Stile of S. Leo is polite and over-elegant. His Discourse is made up of Periods, whose Parts are well distinguished and measured. He has a Rhyming Cadence of words, which is very wonderful; it is swelled with noble Epithets, fit Appositions, suitable Antitheses and admirable endings of Periods; this renders it pleasant to the Ear, and that sets such a lustre upon it as is dazling and ravishing. But this Stile not being natural, is found some∣time intricate and obscure, and keeps the Reader or Hearer in suspense. The Elegancy of these sort of Discourses arises from nothing but the ranging of the words, which makes a won∣derful Cadence. If we will alter it, and express the same sence in other words, we shall per∣ceive no such Beauty as we admired before. Nevertheless S. Leo's sence is very good; he is exact in Points of Doctrine, and very skilful in Discipline, but he is not very full of Moral Points; he treats of them very dryly, in a way that rather diverts than affects. He was zea∣lous for the Rights and Privileges of his See, and sought all opportunities of advancing and en∣larging them as much as possible. This design is very apparent in all his Writings, but we must own that he used his Power with a great deal of Meckness and Moderation, being per∣swaded, That the only use of it was to provide that the Laws of the Church he duly observed, and that nothing be commanded or allowed contrary to the Decrees of the Councils. These were his Principles. He greatened his Authority, but it was for Edification, and never for Destruction. He had a great Veneration for Emperors and Kings. He medled not with Ci∣vil Affairs. Lastly, it may be said, That the Church of Rome never had more Grandeur and less Pride than in this Pope's time. The Bishop of Rome was never more honoured, more con∣siderable and respected than in this Pope's time, and yet he never carried himself with more Humility, Wisdom, Sweetness and Charity.

The first Edition of S. Leo's Works was composed by John Andrew, Bishop of the Isle of Corsica, and printed at Venice in 1485. This Edition was Reprinted in 1505. by Portesius. This had but a few of his Letters. But the Collections of Merlin and Crabbe, afford us a greater

number. Canisius undertook a new Edition of S. Leo's Works, which he published at Collen in 1546, and 1547. Surius made another in 1561. This was followed by another of the Canons of S. Martin of Louvain in 1575, and 1578. and at Antwerp in 1583. The Letters of S. Leo are inserted in the Collection of the Decretals and Councils. In 1614, and 1618. the Works of S. Leo were Printed with the Homilies of S. Maximus and S. Chrysologus [at Paris], and afterwards Reprinted several times at Lyons, [viz. 1633, 1651, and 1671.] and at Paris.

But all these Editions are not comparable to the last, which F. Quesnel, a Priest of the Ora∣tory, hath published. It was printed at Paris by Coignard in 1675. He hath published 31 Sermons never before printed, and reviewed the Works already publick, by a great number of MSS. from which he hath taken very considerable Amendments. It is divided into 2 Tomes, in Quarto. The 1st. contains S. Leo's Sermons and Letters, with the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, the Aphorisms of Grace attributed to S. Coelestine, and the Epistle to Demetras, which he pretends to be S. Leo's. He hath ranked his Sermons and Works in a better Order, and hath separated his Supposititious Works from his Genuine. This Tome ends with the Life of Hilary Bishop of Arles, written by Honoratus. The 2d. Tome contains an ancient Book of Canons and Constitutions of the Popes, which F. Quesnel holds to be that which the Church of Rome used heretofore; six Dissertations upon Matters that have relation to the Works he was about to publish, and very learned and useful Notes upon S. Leo's Letters. Al∣tho' his Dissertations seem to be something long, and contain some things which seem remote from the Works of this Father, yet they are written with so much Reason, and are so full of Learning, that no Man will be troubled to have them joined with the Works of this Father. The Industry of the Printer, the Beauty of the Character, and Correctness of the Edition, are answerable to the Learning of him who had the care of it.

S. HILARY Bishop of Arles.

HONORATUS Bishop of Marseille, whom we think to be the Author of the ancient Life of Hilary Bishop of Arles, hath written it with so much Exactness, that we cannot be mistaken in following him. He speaks nothing of his noble Extraction and Country, * 1.145 imitating therein S. Hilary himself, who made no account of those Privileges. He passes over in silence what was very worthy of observation in his Youth concerning his Studies, the Acuteness and Vigor of Wit, his Proficiency in the Sciences, being perswaded, That it is needless to enlarge upon those things, in writing the Life of a Person so Vertuous as S. Hi∣lary.

In the next place he relates after what manner Honoratus Abbot of * 1.146 Lerins left his Society, and went into his Country to find out S. Hilary, that he might convert him. He describes the opposition he met withal at first from S. Hilary, the Arguments which he made use of to move him, the disturbance S. Hilary himself was in, and at last, how being touched by Grace, which changeth the Will, he took up a resolution to withdraw himself from the World. Having sold his Estate to his Brother, he gave the price of it to the Poor, or disposed of it for the Subsistence of the Monks, and then retreated into the Isle of Lerins. Sometime after Ho∣noratus having been chosen Bishop of Arles, S. Hilary went with him thither; but the Love of retreat soon recalled him to his ancient Privacy. Two years after, in 429. Honoratus being ready to pass out of this Life into a better, sent for his dear Son Hilary to do the last Offices for him; whom, as he was about to return, the Governor Cassius cast his Eyes upon, to make him Successor to Honoratus, and his Choice was unanimously approved by all, wherefore he detained him, and, tho' against his Will, ordained him Bishop of Arles.

This Dignity, which often corrupts others, did only increase his Holiness and Zeal. He founded a Society of the Clergy, which he trained up to Godliness, by Imitation and Example. He taught them, by his own Practice, to contemn the World, to neglect the Body, to subdue it by Fasting and Mortifications, to suppress Sin, to live Hardly, to Journy on Foot, to Eat and Drink just no more than Necessity requires, to undergo hard Labor, to meditate on the Law of God, to relieve the Poor and Widows, and be good Examples to all the World. He sold the Ornaments of the Church to redeem Captives, insomuch that he was forced to use Chalices and Pattins of Glass. He expended the Offerings of the People for the Redemption of the Members of Jesus Christ, not reserving any thing for himself. He had a special regard for the Holy Monks. He was extreamly humble, and yet he was inflexible inrespect of the Proud, and terrible to Persons Haughty, and puffed up with their own Grandeur. This is an eminent Instance of his Constancy and Inflexibleness. The Governor of the City having done many Injuries, he often admonished him of them in private, but since the Governor valued it

not▪ on a day, when he came into the Church with his G••ards, while S. Hilary was Preaching, he broke off his Sermo•• saying, That he ought not to hear the Word of God in publick, who is not bettered by private Instructions. His Sermons were El••qu••nt, and adorned with curiou•• Sentences. He employed the Spiritual Sword of the Word of God to cut off Heresies. On the Fasting-days he preached to the People even till Night, and that with so much De∣light, that they almost forgot they had need of Eating. When he was to speak to the Igno∣rant, he used such Language as was suitable to their Capacities. But when he saw learned Persons come to hear him, he elev••••ed himself, and made himself so much admired, that 2 Bishops of that time, called Sy••••i•••• and Eusebi••••, Persons very well known by their Writings, going one day into his Church as he was Preaching, did own, That there was some∣thing Extraordinary and Divine in his Discourses. When he had once begun, he would never make an end, if the Sign, which was given him to tell when it was time to conclude, had not made him give over, His Discourses were so elegant▪ that a learned Poet of his time pro∣claimed publickly, That if S. Austin had lived after S. Hil••ry, he would have been accounted inferior to him. The Works which he hath left us, are an evident Proof of his Eloquence, viz. The Life of Ho••oratus. His Homilies upon all the Festivals of the year, his Exposition of the Creed, a great number of Letters, and his Poems written ••ith a great deal of Wit. If what I say of his Eloquence, saith Honoratus, be not credible, sure Eucherius will be re∣garded, who having received his Book in Verse and Prose, wro••e back again to him▪ That there was in it an equal Portion of Wit and Eloquence; yea, let them believe Auxiliaris, a Roman Orator▪ who commends his Letters as Pieces excellently written. He had so ready a Wi••, that he could Read, Compose, Dictate and Write with his own Hand at the same time. 'Tis wonderful, but it is authorized by the Testimony of the Poet Edesius, who himself saw it. His Table was so Frugal, that he never durst invite any Body to it. He sought all Oppor∣tunities of being serviceable to the Publick. Being at the Salt-pits, he invented and made some Engines himself, or certain Instruments to make some Wares, which would remove themselves conveniently and easily. He rose at Midnight, went 8 or 10 Miles on Foot, offi∣ciated every day at Divine Service, and made very long Sermons. When he imposed Penance on Offenders (which he did ordinarily on the Lord's day) they came to hear him in Throngs. All that were present poured forth Tears, and being astonished at the Judgments of God, and allured by the Promises, they sent out such strong▪ Crys and Sighs▪ That all the Place was filled with the noise of them. Who ever better displayed the Rigor of God's Judgments? Who ever more lively represented the Torments of Hell? Who ever made Sinners more sen∣sible of the Enormities of their Crimes? After his Exhortation was ended, he received the first Supplications with Tears, and confirmed by Prayer the Fruit of Repentance stirred up by his Exhortations. He cast out Devils from the Bodies of such as were possessed, by making them renounce their Sins publickly. When he saw his People go out of the Church after the Gospel was read, he kept them b••ck, by telling them, You may easily go from hence, but you cannot go from Hell.

Who can express, saith Honoratus, how much good his Vi••••tations did in the French Churches? He often went to see S. German, with whom he made an enquiry into the Life and Manners of the Clergy. While he was with him a certain Bishop, named Celedonius, was accused before him, because he had married a Widow before he was ordain'd, which is forbidden by the Canons, and the Authority of the Holy See: Some added, That he had been present at the Tryal and Condemnation of Criminals. The Case being discussed with all the fairness imaginable, and the Witnesses heard, he pronounced, That he whom the Holy Canons deprived of his Priesthood, ought to forsake it of himself. He resolv'd with himself to go to Rome; he complains, That he had been condemned with too much Severi••y. S. Hilary understanding this puts himself immediately upon his Journey to go to Rome; the Coldness of the Season, the Heighth of the Alps, and other Troubles in the Journey, could not take off the Edge of his Zeal; he conquered them all, and went to Rome on Foot; after having paid his Devotion to the Tombs of the Apostles and Martyrs, he went to S. Leo, gave him all due Respect and Veneration, and humbly besought him that he would make no Alte∣ration in the ordinary Discipline of the Church: He complain'd, That those Bishops who had been condemned in France were permitted to exercise their Ministry at Rome, which was a great Scandal, and ought to be rectify'd by him: As for himself, he says, He came not to assist at their Their Tryal or Condemnation, but only to pay his Respects; and what he said was by way of Protestation, not Accusation, and if he would not hearken to him, he would not be further troublesome about it.

Nor was he more bold and courageous in his Words than Actions: He proved, that he very little valued the Menances of Rome, for he stiffly maintain'd what he had done, yielded to no Man, would never communicate with those whom he had condemned, and seeing that he could not make the Romans understand Reason, he went home again. Being returned, he neglected nothing that might appease the Pope's Mind; he first of all sent Ravennius the Priest, who afterward was his Successor, and then deputed the * 1.147 Bishops Nectarius and Constan∣tius, to negotiate his Affair with the Pope; he gave them long Instructions, but found no acceptance. It is worth our Pains to read what Auxiliaris▪ the Praefect of Rome [who was also imployed to pacify the Pope] wrote to our Saint:

I have received, according to my

Duty, the Bishops Constantius and Nectarius, who are come hither on your behalf. I have often discoursed with them about your Constancy and Contempt of the World. I have also spoken of your Business to Pope Leo: I do not doubt but here you will be a little as••onish'd, since you are always firm, and in the same Purposes, not being transported with excessive Anger or Joy; I do not believe but that you must suspect some part of the World to be governed by Pride, but Men do not easily endure that others should speak their Opini∣ons freely of them, besides, the Roman Ears are very Nice, that they will not suffer any thing that doth not please them. I am of Opinion, that if you would become more mild, you would gain much by it. Grant me this, and remove those little Clouds by the small Change of a Calm.

S. Hilary did nothing of it, but seeing that no great Success was to be hoped for by that Negotiation, he gave himself wholly to Prayer and Labor, and passed the rest of his Days in continual Austerities. Some Hours before his Death he called together his Society, and having made a very affectionate Discourse to them, he resign'd his Soul to God, anno 454. We have related the Life of this Bishop at length, as it is written by Honoratus Bishop of Marseille, because it contains many very important Points of Discipline, and discovers the Disposition and Character of S. Hilary. We have also in it an enumera∣tion of the Works of S Hilary: We have nothing of them at present but the Life of Hono∣ratus, a Letter to Eucherius, and a Poem upon the Beginning of Genesis. F. Quesnel▪ hath collected these Three Pieces, and caused them to be printed at the End of S. Leo's Works. * 1.148 The Life of Honoratus had already been publish'd by Bollandus. It doth not at all come short of the Idea which Honoratus hath given us of the Wit and Eloquence of S. Hilary.

He says, in the Beginning, That he had a great Conflict in his Mind, and though he took great Delight in celebrating the Memory of S. Honoratus; yet on the other Hand, he was much troubled to think that he had lost a Person for whom he had so great a Love. Talem reminisci••dulce est, tali carere supplicium. After he hath amplified this Notion, he observeth, That it is dangerous to praise a Man before his Death: But he cannot praise good Men too much, when they are departed into another Life, because, besides that the Praises which we bestow upon them cannot be suspected of Flattery, they tend much to the Edification of the Church, and may be of good Use to the Faithful: God is praised in his Saints, because all their Worth and Excellency ought to be imputed to the Author of Grace. He adds, That he is not afraid that any Man will think he speaks too favorably of S. Honoratus, because nothing can be said of him, which doth not come far short of his Merit and Vertues. That he was very sensible that he had not Wit and Eloquence enough to undertake to write upon a Subject, which requires the Eloquence of the most accomplish'd Orators of Antiquity, but that the Respect and Kindness which he had for him, engaged him to satisfy their Desires, hoping that the Deserts of that Saint would put Life into his Discourse, and revive the meanness of it.

The Custom of such Authors as write Panegyricks, is to begin with the Commendations of the Country and Parentage of him, upon whom they make them, that the Glory of his Ancestors may supply the Defects of his Vertues. But as for us Christians, we are all but one in Jesus Christ, the greatest Nobility among us is to be the Children of God; he is the most glorious and greatest who hath the meanest Conceit of his noble Extraction. These Reasons kept S. Hilary from enlarging upon the Honours and great Offices which had been in the Family of Honoratus, and among others the Consulship which the World looks upon as one of the most eminent Dignities. He begins his Encomium of him with the Praise of his Christian Vertues and Spiritual Regeneration, the Tractableness of his Infancy, Modesty of his Youth, the Regularity of his Conversation, and Life in his Youth; but above all, the Earnestness with which he desired and demanded Baptism, against the Will and Consent of his Parents, and the Care he had, after he had received it, to keep himself Harmless and undefiled, by avoid∣ing all occasions of Sin, resisting Temptations, and shunning the Pleasures of the World. He often said to himself, This worldly Life pleaseth us, but it deludes us: This Consideration made him often resolve to renounce a worldly Life wholly: This enduc'd him to cut off his Hair, wear a course Habit, and mortify his Body with Labour. This Change stirr'd up his Father and nearest Relations against him, but he opposed them, and continued to live an austere Life: His Example prevailed so much with his elder Brother, named Venantius, that he embraced the same way of Living. The Reputation of their Holiness spread it self soon through all the World, and attracted the Praise and Admiration of all Men: This made them take up a Resolution to forsake their Country, and find out a Retreat; they took with them a certain old Man named Caprasius, and went into several Places to live in Solitude, but for all this their Reputation discovered them. They took Ship, intending to go by Sea into the East, but Venantius being dead by the way, in Achaia, Honoratus returned into Italy, and at length retired into the Isle of Lerins, there to pass his Life in the Exercises of a Monastick Life. This engaged him to enter into Holy Orders, which he had ever before avoided; and when many Persons came to find him out, that they might live under his Conduct, he built a Monastery, took care to govern the Religio••s, and ruled them with all the Kindness and Pru∣dence possible. S. Hilary commends his Discretion, chiefly his Care to provide for the Neces∣sities of the Religious, his kind Entertainment of Strangers, his liberal Distribution of Alms, and his Love for all the World. He also relates what great Pains he took to convert him,

and after what manner he caught him. He proceeds, in the next Place, to his Episcopal Ver∣tues, upon which, nevertheless, he doth not enlarge so much as he might have done, because they were sufficiently known to the Christians of Arles. He observes, notwithstanding the greatness of his Vigilance and Charity, how he mixt Severity with Mildness, after what man∣ner he took care of his Flock, with what Vehemency he reproved Vice, how he settled Peace and Concord in the Church. He adds, That he did not make use of his Power for Terror, but he govern'd his Flock with Love; and that during the Time that he was Bishop, the Church grew in Grace but decreased in Riches, because he distributed those Treasures which his Predecessors had gathered together, and for a long Time lay useless, reserving no more than what was just necessary for his Subsistence, of which likewise he would retrench a part, if there were need of it.

In fine, S. Honoratus, being impaired with Labours and Austerities, fell into a languishing Distemper, which nevertheless did not hinder him from executing his Priestly Office. He preach'd in the Church upon the Feast of Epiphany, anno 429. but his Disease being increased, took him away within Eight or Nine Days after. He shewed a great deal of Constancy and Courage in the Extremity of his Sickness; S. Hilary, who was present at his Death, relates here many exemplary Circumstances. He describes also his Funeral Solemnity; and after he hath made a short Relation of his Vertues, and equal'd him with the Martyrs, he ends his Discourse with an Address to him, To pray him to remember him and his People, and to be their Patron and Intercessor with God.

His Poem upon the Beginning of Genesis is much inferior to the Life of Honoratus in Beauty and Elegancy. It is full of Faults against the Rules of Pros••dia; it contains nothing noble or remarkable in it.

The Letter of Hilarius Bishop of Arles to S. Eucherius, is a small Ticket, in which he tells him, That he had run over the Books of Constitutions, which he sent him, and desires to send him one of his Children, to whom he had given such excellent Precepts. This shews the Intimacy and Friendship there was between Hilary Bishop of Arles and S. Eucherius. It appears also by the Writings of this Latter, who speaks very honourably of him, and hath dedicated his Book, Of the Praise of a Monastick Life, to him. Constantius, the Author of the Life of S. German, Julianus, Pomerius, Sidonius, Apollinaris, and all other Authors of that Time, speak of him as a very Holy Man. S. Prosper, who did not like well of him, because he was not altogether of S. Austin's Opinion about Grace, nevertheless, in his Letter to S. Austin speaks of him as a Person of great Authority, and very well versed in all spiri∣tual Knowledge, and owns that he was a Man of excellent Worth. In his Chronicon he joyns him with S. Eucherius, and says, That they both consummated an eminent Life by an Holy Death. Lastly, although S. Leo had great Quarrels with him, and spake very ill of him in his Life-time, yet he could not refrain speaking honourably of him after his Death. The only thing that he can be reproach'd with is, that he did not follow S. Austin's Opinion about Grace, and having favour'd, or at least being one of the principal Patrons of the Semi-Pela∣gians: But at that Time the most Learned and Holy Persons of France were of that Opinion. This was the Doctrine of the Monks of Lerins, with whom S. Hilary lived; yea, this was the Doctrine held by the Bishops and all the Clergy of the Provinces of Vienna and Narbonne. Those that maintained this Opinion were not look'd upon as Hereticks, unless it were by the zealous Followers of S. Austin: It is no wonder then that S. Leo does not reproach him with it. I have forgotten to observe, That S. Hilary was present at, and subscribed first, the Coun∣cils of Ries in 439. and Orange in 441.

S. VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS.

VINCENTIUS, a Frenchman by Nation, after he had spent some part of his Life among the Troubles, Commotions and Waves of the World * 1.149, through the Impulse of the Holy * 1.150 Spirit, retreated, as he himself says, Into the Haven of Religion; O Happy and Safe Haven for all the World: And having gotten Shelter against the Storms of Pride, and the Vanity of the World, to retire the remaining▪ Part of his Days, and offer to God the continual Sacrifices of Humiliation, that he might avoid the Sufferings of this Life, and the Flames of the Life to come. The Place of his Retreat was the famous Monastery of the Isle of Lerins, so famous for so many Persons eminent for Doctrine and Piety, which it hath produced for the Church: Vinoentius the Priest was none of the least Ornaments of it: S. Eucherius, who tells us, That he was the Brother of Lupus Bishop of Troyes, compares him, for the Fervency of his Devotion, to the brightness of a sparkling Diamond, interno gemmam splendore perspicuam: And in another place commends his Learning and Eloquence. Gennadius assures us, That he was well skilled in the Holy Scriptures, and very well versed in the Discipline of the Church.

He hath composed an excellent Treatise against the Hereticks, in which he hath given very infallible Rules and convincing Principles to distinguish Error from Truth, and the Sects of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hereticks from the Catholick Church. But his Humility made him conceal his Name, and he published his Treatise under the Title of a * 1.151 Commentary made by Peregrinus against the Hereticks. It was divided into two parts, but the 2d. being lost, he contented himself to make an Abridgment of it.

He proposes to himself, in this Commentary, to gather the Principles of the ancient Fathers against the Hereticks. He tells us, in the Preface, That it was the Usefulness of the Work it self; the time and the place that he lived in, and his Profession, that engaged him to undertake this Work. The time, because all things here below being carried on with such a swiftness, it is reasonable that we should snatch up something that may stand us in stead in another Life, and so much the rather because the terrible expecting of the last Judgment (which he thought ••igh at hand, because that the Barbarians had made so great a Progress into the Empire) ought to stir up the Zeal of the Faithful for Religion, and the Malice of the Hereticks ought to oblige the Orthodox to stand upon their Guard. The place also was very suitable for such a Work, because, being distant from the noise and crowd of the Cities, retired in a pri∣vate Village, and shut up in the Cloysters of a Monastery, he was able, without Distraction, to do that which is said in the Psalm, Attend ye, and see, that I am your God. Lastly, no Em∣ployment can be more agreeable to a religious Life, which he professed. He therefore under∣takes * 1.152 to write rather as an Historian than an Author, what he hath learned from the An∣cients, and they have entrusted to their Posterity. He advertiseth us, That his design was not to collect all, but only to offer to our observation what there is most necessary.

Entring then upon his Matter, he saith, That he hath learned from many Learned and Holy Persons, That the means to avoid Heresie, and adhere stedfastly to the true Faith, is to ground themselves upon two Foundations, 1. Upon the Authority of Holy Scripture. 2. Upon the Tradition of the Catholick Church. But perhaps some will demand, saith he, the Canon of the Holy Books being perfect and sufficient of it self to settle all Religion; why is it ne∣cessary to join the Authority of the Church with it? He answers, 'Tis because Holy Scripture having a sublime sence, is differently explained; one understands it after this manner, and another after that, insomuch, that there are almost as many Opinions about the true meaning of it, as there are Persons. Novatian understands it one way, and Photinus another. It is necessary then altogether upon the account of the subtile Evasions of so many Hereticks of se∣veral sorts, in interpreting Scripture to take the sence of the Catholick Church for our Rule. But yet we must be careful to choose out of those Doctrines, which we find in the Church, such as have always been believed in all places, and by all true Christians; for there is indeed no∣thing truly and properly Catholick, as the Name in its full signification doth denote, but what comprehends all in general. Now it will be so if we follow Antiquity, unanimous Consent and Universality. We shall follow Universality, if we believe no other Doctrine true, but that which is taught in all Churches, dispersed through the whole World. We shall follow Antiquity, if we depart not from the Judgment of our Ancestors and Fathers. Lastly, we shall follow unanimous Consent, if we adhere to the Opinions of all, or of almost all the Ancients. But what shall an Orthodox Christian do if some part of the Church apostatize from the Faith of the whole Body of the Church? There is nothing to be done but to pre∣ferr the Doctrine of the whole Body that is sound, before the Error of a rotten and putrefy'd Member. But what if some new Error is ready to spread it self, I do not say, over a small part, but almost over all the Church? We must then be sure to cleave close to Antiquity, which cannot be corrupted with Novelty. In fine, if among the Ancients we find one or two Persons, or perhaps a City or Province in an Error, we must preferr the Decrees of the ancient and universal Church before the Rashness or Ignorance of some Particulars. But if there arise any Question, to which we cannot find a Parallel Case, we must then consult the Judgments of the Ancients, and compare together what those Authors have said at several times, and in di∣stinct places, who being in the Communion of the Church may be esteemed Teachers worthy of Credit, and not only to rely upon what one or two have said, but what they all have held, written and taught unanimously, clearly, and without contradicting themselves at any time. To these Rules Vincentius Lirinensis had added these Examples. The Example of the Dona∣tists he uses to prove, That we ought to keep to the Universality; that of the Arians, That we must cleave to Antiquity and reject Novelty. The Opinion of S. Cyprian about the Rebap∣tization of Hereticks, he makes use of to shew, That we must not always follow the Senti∣ments of one particular Ancient, but we may be Hereticks in maintaining the Doctrine which one Orthodox Doctor hath taught, wherefore we must depend upon Consent and una∣nimous Agreement.

Photinus, Apollinaris and Nestorius, are also brought for Examples of Hereticks, who were unfortunately mistaken by departing from the Tradition of the Catholick Church. The Fall of Origen and Tertullian may be a Warning to all Christians how they lean upon the Autho∣rity, or Reputation, or Learning of any private Person, and forsake the Doctrine of the Universal Church. Vincentius Lirinensis after he hath enlarged, as much as was possible, upon these Examples, returns to his Principles, and maintains, That we ought to keep our selves to the ancient Rule of Faith, and ought not at any time to seek after or propagate any new Do∣ctrine

in the Church; That they who suffer any new Doctrine, hitherto unknown, to be taught, are Deceivers; That Men may labour to explain and clear the Ancient Faith well, but may not teach any thing new; they may have a way of expressing Matters, but no new Subjects. Cum dicas 〈◊〉〈◊〉, non dic•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But may some say, how is it, that the Faith may not be improved or perfected? Certainly it may be, but it cannot be changed. The Church grows in Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom, but it always ho••••s the same Doctrines, neither taking from them nor adding to them. Things may be made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 evident, receive greater Light, and be better distinguished, but they remain always in the same Fulness, Per∣fection and Nature: Antiquity may be polished or perfected, but we must always keep the s••me Foundation. And truly the Church hath done nothing else in the Councils, but main∣tain'd the ancient Faith against the Innovation of Hereticks. It obliges us to believe more explicitely what we have already believed, and teach that, with more Power, which we have heretofore taught, and defend with greater care, what we have already defended. In fine, it gives us an express definition in writing of that, which it hath received from its Ancestors by Tradition. The Hereticks, on the contrary, have broached new Doctrines, and made use of the Holy Scripture to gain reception of them. Vincentius Lirinensis brings several Examples. In the next place he considers after what manner we ought to consult and compare the Opi∣nions of the Ancient Fathers, and brings for an Example, in the 2d. part of his Commentary, the Proceedings of the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius, but because that part was lost, he contented himself in giving us an Abridgment, making a Summary of the Principles, which he had laid down in his Work. But we must not forget, that Vincentius Lirinensis owns, That there are two occasions, upon which these excellent Rules concerning Tradition are not of so great use. 1. When Questions of very small Consequence, which do not concern the Rule of Faith, are under Debate, or Questions, which serve for the Foundation of Christian Doctrine. 2. When we have to deal with Heresies which are of a long standing; for, saith he, 'tis not convenient to oppose all Heresies by Tradition only, but only such as are newly risen up, as soon as they appear, and before they have corrupted the ancient Records; for when they are once throughly setled and grown old, this Argument becomes weak, because they have had, as I may say, time to cover themselves with an appearance of Antiquity. So that we must content our selves to confute them by Scripture, or avoid them as Sects con∣demned and disproved by the ancient Councils of the Catholick Church.

It is very probable that this Author is the same with him, who propounded the Objections, or rather Questions against S. Austin's Doctrine concerning Grace, which S. Prosper hath an∣swered. There are likewise some places in that little Treatise in which he seems to quarrel with the rigid Scholars of S. Austin. But be that as it will, he was in a Country and in a Monastery, where he did not think himself obliged to addict himself to S. Austin's Opinions, whatsoever esteem he had for him. And perhaps it is for that reason, that he hath laid it down so fir••ly, that we ought not to submit to the Authority of one Father alone, but to the unanimous consent of many. Nevertheless he condemns Pelagius and Julian, and there is no Objection to be made against the Rules, which he gave to discern the Doctrines of Faith from Heresie, Error and Opinion, since they are the same, which the Church hath always observed, the Holy Fathers have laid down in their Writings, and S. Austin himself hath given in many places. Vincentius Lirinensis did no more but collect, enlarge, and put those Rules in order which he found in the Church, and ••e hath done it with much Faithfulness, Clearness and Eloquence. He composed this Treatise 3 years after the Council of Ephesus in 434. He died in the Reign of Theodosius and Valentin•…•…, he is acknowledged for a Saint in the Roman Martyrology, and his Memory is celebrated 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 24th. of May. This little Tract hath been printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tome 7.] and in several Collections of Authors, at Basil in 1528. [at Collen 1569. with Costerius's Notes] at Paris in 1569. and in 1586. which Edi∣tion is reviewed by Peter Pitthaeus. [at Collen it was Reprinted with Costerius's Notes in 1613, Twelves.] Fillesachus hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on it, and had it Printed 1619. [in Quarto.] It was Printed at Lyons, with a Controve•…•…l Treatise in 1622. Lastly, M. Balusius published it with Salvian, 1663. [whose Edition was Reprinted at Paris, 1669. in Octavo. It was also Printed at Cambridge in 1687, Twelves.]

S. EUCHERIUS.

ST. EUCHERIUS, after he had had two Sons, called Salonius and Veranus * 1.153 with-drew himself into the Isle of Lerins, and was afterward made Bishop of Lyons. We have * 1.154 some of his Works. The first is a Book written in Praise of the Desart, or of Solitude, dedi∣cated to S. Hilary afterward Bishop of Arles, in the time that he left Honoratus to return to the Solitude of Lerins, that is to say, about the year 428. He hath collected, in that little Treatise, a great number of Arguments to raise Men's good Opinion of a Solitary Life. The Desart is the Temple of God. In the Desart God is found. The earthly Paradise is the Figure of it. Moses saw God in the Desart. The People of Israel were delivered by passing through the Desart. The Red-Sea opened it self to give them a free Passage into the Desart, and af∣terward closed again to prevent their return from thence. In the Desart they were nourished with the Heavenly Food, and quenched their Thirst with the miraculous Water. In the De∣sart they received the Law. David was preserved in the Desart. Elias, Elisha, and the Pro∣phets dwelt in Desarts. Jesus Christ was baptized in the Desart. There it was that Angels ministred unto him, where he fed 5000 Men. It was upon a Mountain in the Wilderness, that his Glory appeared. He prayed in the Desart. The Saints retired themselves into the Desart. The Habitation of Desarts is to be preferr'd before all others; there God is more easily found, there we converse more familiarly with him, there we live more quietly and free from Temptations. The Praises of Desarts in general are attended by the particular Commendations of the Desart of Lerins. That is a sweet Place full of Fountains, over-spread with Herbs, abounding with most pleasant Flowers, grateful as well to the Eyes as Smell, an abode fit for Honoratus, who first founded the Monasteries, and had Maximus for his Successor; blessed Lupus, his Brother Vincentius, and Reverend Caprasius, and many other Holy Old Men, who dwelt in separate Cells, have made the Life of the Aegyptian Monks to flourish among us. Lastly, After he hath spoken of their Vertues, he congra∣tulates Hilarius, That he was return'd again to such a Charming and Delightful Dwelling.

The Second Work is a * 1.155 Treatise of the Contempt of the World, dedicated to his Kinsman, called Valerian, who was of an Illustrious Family, to exhort him to fly from the World. He represents to him the two principal Duties incumbent upon Man. 1. To know and wor∣ship God. 2. To take Care of the Salvation of his Soul. That these Two Duties are inseparable, because no Man can be careful of his Soul unless he worship God, nor honour God, unless he take care of his Soul: That it is more reasonable to be sollicitous for the Safety of our Souls than our Bodies, because the Life of the Soul is Eternal, whereas the Life of the Body must have an end; and for that Reason we must labour in this Life for Eterni∣ty: That it is easy to obtain the Eternal Happiness which we desire, provided that we contemn this miserable Life: That the World hath Two principal Attractives to allure us to it, Riches and Honour, but that we ought to tread them both under our Feet: That Riches are ordina∣rily the Causes of Injustice, that they are uncertain, that we must necessarily leave them at our Death: That Honours are common to the Good and Evil, that Fortune hath her flittings, and nothing is stable and permanent but true Piety: That the true Honours and Riches are celestial: That it is impossible to make a serious Reflection upon the shortness of Life and the necessity of Death, but we must think that these are not the only good Things for our Salvation: That we ought not to follow the Examples of those who lead a worldly Life, but to propound to themselves the Lives of them who renounce the World that they may lead a truly Christian Life, although they were Persons of Quality, and might have enjoyed Honours and Riches. S. Clemens, S. Greg. Thaumaturgus, S. Basil, S. Greg. Nazianzen, S. Paulinus of Nola, S. Hilary Bishop of Arles and Petronius, are those whom S. Eucherius propounds to Valerian; he mentions the excellent Orators who renounced the Honours which they might have hoped for in the World, yet laid aside all their Glory to write for Religion, such as Lactantius, Minutius Foelix, S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. J. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose. He propounds to him also the Examples of Holy Kings. Lastly, He makes use of the whole Frame of Na∣ture, and all the Visible World, to prove that the only Employment of Man ought to be to honour the Creator of all Things. After all these Considerations he discovers to him the Vanity of all Philosophical Knowledge, and shews him that there is no true Wisdom taught, nor any true Happiness to be found but in the Religion of Jesus Christ. This Writing is dated in the 1085th. Year from the first Building of Rome, which is the 432. of our common Aera. These Two Treatises are written in a Style very Clean and Elegant, the Matter is Spiritual, and the manner of handling it very agreeable. It may be said that these little Books are not inferior in the Politeness and Purity of Language to the Works of those Authors who lived in those Ages, when Language was in greater Purity. They have been printed distinctly at Antwerp in 1621. [This Treatise to Valerian was printed at Basil, with Erasmus's Notes; who commends it to us as one of the most elegant Pieces of Antiquity, anno 1520 and 1531.

It was also publish'd by Rosoeidus, with Notes, at Antwerp 1620. together with the former, in the Praise of Solitude, which Genebrard put out at Paris 1578.]

His other Treatises are not so Profitable nor so Elegant as the former by a great deal. His Treatise of * 1.156 Spiritual Terms and Phrases, directed to Veranus, is a Collection of Mystical and Spiritual Reflections upon the Terms and Expressions of Holy Scriptures, in which there is very little Solidity. His first Book of Instructions contains the Explication of several Questions, which he proposes to himself out of the Old and New Testament. Some of them are very well resolved, and we may find in them some very good Remarks. The Second Book contains, 1. The Explication of the Hebrew Names. 2. The Signification of some Hebrew Terms, which are often met withal in the Bible, such as Amen, Hall•…•…, &c. 3. The Explication of some special Phrases. 4. An Explication of the Names of Nations, Cities and Rivers which are not known. 5. Of the Hebrew Months and Festivals. 6. The Names of Idols. 7. The Explication of their Habits and Cloathing. 8. Of Birds and Beasts. 9. A Comparison of the Jewish Weights and Measures with those of the Greeks and Latins, and the Signification of some Greek Names. The Usefulness and Worth of this Critical Work may be easily known, but the composing of it is very hard. S. Eucherius hath not examin'd these Things throughly, but contents himself to give the Meaning of every Thing in short, without troubling himself to prove them. He hath taken the greatest part of what he dis∣courseth of, out of several Authors: He discusses them very often well enough, but he is mistaken in many Places. Gennadius makes mention of these Books.

The Commentaries upon Genesis, and the Books of Kings, which go under the Name of S. Eucherius, cannot be his, because the Author himself tells us upon Chap. xxii. of the Third Book of Kings, that he lived under the Popedom of S. Gregory, at the Time when he sent S. Austin and S. Paulinus into England. He also quotes Cassiodorus, and copies out often the Comments of S. Gregory, which evidently prove that these Books do carry a False Name.

The History of the Sufferings of S. Mauritius and the other Thebaean Martyrs, related by Surius, on the 22d. of Septemb. and printed by it self [at Ingolstadt] in 1617. by the Care of P. Steward, is not the Style of our S. Eucherius: It may better be accounted another S. Eucherius's, who was present at the Fourth Council of Arles, in 524, and at the Second Council of Orange, in 529. for he of whom we now speak was dead in 454. as is noted in Prosper's Chronicon.

We have neither his Abridgment of Cassian, nor some other Works concerning a Monastick Life, which Gennadius makes mention of. As to the Homilies of which S. Mamertus speaks, some think that some of those which bear the Name of Eusebius Emesenus are his, which it may not be amiss to examine in this Place. We have often spoke of them already, but did not throughly determine it, because we had not throughly examin'd it, but it is a convenient Time to do it. We find, at the first Sight, 145 of them upon all the Sundays and Holydays in the Year, which all the Manuscripts of Monte-Cassino and the Vatican restore to * 1.157 Bruno Bishop of Signi. The Agreement of the Style of these Homilies with the other Treatises of that Au∣thor, leave no place to doubt but that they are really his. Thus we see already the great Number of Sermons attributed to S. Eucherius much lessen'd. The others are certainly, as I have already observed, some one or several French Authors. There are some of the Sermons, as that of Maximus Regensis, that cannot be composed but by a Person who lived in the Time when the Monastery of Lerins flourish'd. We find in the Life of S. Hilary, written by Honoratus Bishop of Marseille, That there was at that Time a Bishop of France called Eusebius, who made a great many Sermons: This is confirmed by the Verses of Helman, Scholar of Rabanus, who reckons Caesarius and Eusebius among the famous Bishops of France. All these Homilies therefore might well be attributed to him; but this cannot be, because we find some made by Caesarius, others by Maximus Bishop of Ries, and lastly by Faustus Regensis; which proves that 'tis a Collection of Sermons, compiled by the Clergy of the Monastery of Lerins, which bear perhaps the Name of Eusebius, because these Monks had a Custom of Concealing themselves under an Appeliative Name, so that the Sermons of Eusebius seem to import no∣thing else, than the Sermons of a Pious Person. Perhaps this Title was given to these Sermons because the Author was not known, or because those who composed them would not name them otherwise, according to the Custom of Lerins. For this Reason it is that Vincentius of Lerins took the Name of Peregrinus in his Commentary, Salvian of Timotheus; and it may be 'tis for the same Reason that the Life of S. Hilary Bishop of Arles, composed by Honoratus, bears the Name of Reverend.

There are also some of these Sermons made by Caesarius Bishop of Arles, who penn'd a vast number of Sermons, and sent them every way to the Bishops, that they might have them preached in their Churches. Salvian also composed some for the Bishops, insomuch that the great Number of Sermon-makers, who lived at that Time, have bred much Confusion among their Sermons, which are almost all alike, which hath been much increased by the Copyers. Nevertheless, let us pass our Conjectures upon them.

It is certain that the Panegyrick of S. Maximus belongs to Faustus Regensis, to whom it is attributed by Dinamius, who composed the Life of this Holy Abbot. In it he marks, That the Monastery of Lerins had yielded two Bishops to the City of Ries: The First was Maximus,

who was an Honour to it, but of the Second it ought to be ashamed. It is plain, That it is Faustus who speaks so thro' Humility. It is also evident, That the Sermon upon the Death of Honoratus was Preached at Lerins before the Monks of that Monastery, which makes it Credible, that it was also Faustus's. Now these Sermons being in the same Stile with the foregoing, we esteem them to be the same Authors, viz. The 1st, and 2d, Homily upon the Nativity, the 1st up∣on Epiphany, the 2d, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th, upon the Feast of Easter; that upon the good Thief; the 2d about the Ascension, the Panegyricks of S. Elphodius, S. Alexander, S. Genesius, S. Romanus, and all the Sermons Published lately under the Name of Eusebius, some of which bear the Name of Faustinus. Among the Sermons of S. Caesarius Bishop of Arles, the 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Sermons to the Monks, and an Exhortation to the People, are re∣ally his. We also Attribute to him the 2d, 3d, and 4th Homilies upon Epiphany, the 1st upon Lent, the 2d upon the Creed, the 1st, 3d, and 7th, upon Easter, the 1st upon Ascension, that of Pentecost, the Two Homilies upon S. John, S. Peter, and S. Paul, that upon the Maccabees, the Discourse upon the Trinity, Two Sermons upon S. Matthew.

All the Discourses to the Monks seem to be the same Authors, so that if there be any of Cae∣sarius Bishop of Arles, they are all his; perhaps, they are Maximus's, or Faustus's, for their Works are confounded. To these we must add the Sermon to the Penitents, and the Five sub∣sequent, which are very like Caesarius's. The Fourth Sermon upon Easter is Maximus Regen∣sis's, and it may be there are some other Sermons his. The first Sermon upon the Creed is likely to be Hilary's Bishop of Arles, who made a Discourse upon that subject, as we under∣stand by Honoratus. But indeed it is not worthy of him. The Sermon of S. Blandinus was made by some Bishop of Lyons, probably Eucherius, 'tis his Stile. The Homily upon Easter bears the Name of Isidore, in a Manuscript of the Abby of S. Germans. Indeed it is a Mo∣dern composure, for it treats of the Eucharist. S. Thomas hath taken out of it the subject of his Prose. The Homily upon the Litanies agrees exceeding well to S. Mamertus, Author of the Rogation-Days. The Sermon upon the Repentance of the Ninevites seems to be the same Au∣thors. The Sermon upon S. Stephen is altogether unlike to the other, it is probable, that it is a Translation of some Greek Sermon, but that is not certain. These are my Conjectures upon the Sermons Published under the Name of Eusebius. I confess, they are not absolutely certain, but there is so great disorder and confusion among these Sermons in the Manuscripts, and the Authors did follow the Copies, and imitate them so ordinarily at that time, that it is hard to speak any thing more certain.

PETRUS CHRYSOLOGUS.

PETRUS, who was surnamed Chrysologus, was a Native of * 1.158 Imola. He was taught, and admitted into the Clergy by S. Cornelius Bishop of that City, as he Notes in his 165 * 1.159 Sermon. Some are of Opinion, That being at Rome with his Bishop, at that time when the Clergy and People of Ravenna had sent their Deputies to desire a Bishop of Sixtus III, then Pope, he was chosen by that Pope to fill that vacant See, as he had been warned in a Dream by S. Peter, and Apollinaris the first Bishop of the See of Ravenna; but this is a groundless Story, being related by no Credible Author. It is only certain that P. Chrysologus was chosen, and Ordain'd about that time Bishop of Ravenna. He governed that Church several Years. There is a Letter of S. Leo's written to Neonas his Successor, which was heretofore the 37th, and is at present the 135, which is thought to be written in 451, in the Consulship of Martian and Adelphius * 1.160. This supposeth that P. Chrysologus was Dead in 449. But F. Quesnel having proved in his Notes upon that Letter, that it is rather written in 458, some few Years more may be allowed for the continuance of this Saint in his Episcopal Charge, yet not to carry it so far as the Year 500, nor confound him with that Petrus who lived un∣der Theodoricus.

Trithemius says, That this Bishop composed several Sermons, or Homilies, for the People, a Letter to Eutyches, which beginneth with these words, I have read with grief, and some other Letters. We have 176 Sermons, and the Letter to Eutyches.

These Sermons are very short. In them he explains the Text of Holy Scripture in few words, but in a way very pleasing, and makes short Moral Reflections upon them. The Para∣bles, and Miracles, of Jesus Christ, are the chief Subjects of his Sermons. In some of them he Treats of Fasting, Alms-giving, Vigilance, Patience, and some other Christian Virtues. He hath also several upon the Great Feasts, with some Panegyricks of Saints. S. Chrysologus hath found out the way to join extream Brevity, and very great Elegance together, in his dis∣courses. His Stile is made up of short Sentences, and Phrases, which have a natural se∣quence and connexion one with another; the words are very fit, and the sence is simple and natural. It hath nothing swelling, or forced. His descriptions are clear and easie. But for all this, there is nothing great enough, sublime enough, nor eloquent enough to entitle him justly to the Sirname of Chrysologus, of which he is possessed; we see no extraordinary Mo∣tives;

we meet with nothing that quickens, or affects much; we find no Truth enforcing con∣sent, only Doctrines explained at large. All that can be said is this, His Relations are plea∣sant, and his Moral Discourses represent very well to the Mind what we ought to do, but make no impression upon the Heart, nor are able to change the Will.

The Sermons of this Author have been Collected together above Nine Hundred Years, by Foelix Bishop of Ravenna, who lived in the Year 702, or 708. F. Oudin proves it in his Ad∣vertisement, that he found them in Three Manuscripts. They have been Printed since at Col∣len in 1541, 1607, [1618] and 1678, [Quarto] at Parn in 1585, at Antwerp in 1618, at Ly∣ons in [1633] 1636, at Bologne in 1643. This Edition is the best. They are also to be found in Bibliotheca Patrum, [Tom. VII.] and with S. Leo's Works at Paris in 1614, and 1670.

The Epistle to Eutyches was written after that Monk had been Condemned by Flavian. S. Chrysologus tells him, That he read with sorrow his sad Letter; for if the Peace of the Church, the Agreement of the Clergy, and the Quiet of the People, cause Joy in Heaven; on the contrary, Divisions ought to beget Sadness, and Grief; especially, when they proceed from so lamentable a cause, as that was, for which he separated from his Bishop. He adds, That the Church had been free from Controversies for Thirty Years; That Origen and Nestorius had fallen into Error by Reasoning upon the ineffable Mystery of the Incarnation. That it was a shame for Priests to be Ignorant of that which the Magi Acknowledged and Adored; That when Jesus came into the World, Glory to God was Sung, and it is strange at present, that all the World Bow at the Name of Jesus, that he should be Ignorant of the Reason of it. He saith afterward with the Apostle, That tho' we have known Jesus Christ according to the Flesh, yet now we know him no more; That it becomes us not to be very inquisitive, and that we ought to honour, respect, wait upon our Judge, and not dispute about his Title. This is, saith he, what may be answered to your Letter in a few words. I would have sent you a longer Answer, if our Brother Flavian had not sent me some Instruments about what pas∣sed in your Cause. You say, That his Judgment ought not to stand, because he made whom he thought fit to be Judges, but how should we know that, since we neither heard, nor saw them? We should be unjust Arbitrators, if we should determine in favour of one Party, be∣fore we hear the other. In sum, We Exhort you, my most honoured Brother, to submit to what hath been written by the Bishop of Rome, because S. Peter, who lived and presided in his See, Teaches the True Faith to those that inquire after it. As for us, we dare not, for the Love we have to Peace and Truth, concern our selves either to hear or judge Causes with∣out the consent of the Bishop of Rome. Gerard Vossius, who hath Published this Letter in Greek and Latin among several other pieces, at the end of S. Greg. Thaumaturgus at Mentz, in 1604, [in 1603, Cave] tells us, That there are two Manuscripts in the Vatican, where this Letter ends at these words, This is what I thought fit to Answer at present to your Letter. And indeed, It is likely that the Letter ends at that place, and that what follows hath been added afterward to raise the Authority of the Church of Rome. It is nevertheless to be found in the Manuscripts of Cardinal Sirlet, and it is Printed also in the first part of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and in the ordinary Editions of S. Chrysologus.

MAXIMUS TAURINENSIS.

MAXIMUS Bishop of Turin flourished under the Empire of Honorius, and Theodosius the younger. He Lived to the Year 465, since in that Year we find him at a Synod at Rome * 1.161 held under Pope Hilarius. Gennadius saith, That he applied himself to the Holy Scripture, and that he was able to make an Extompore Homily to the People. We have several of his Homilies, which are the greatest part of them cited by Gennadius. There are some upon the Feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, for the Two Sundays in Advent, Ash-Wedncsday, for Palm-Sunday, for the Passion-Week. There are also some for the Saint's-Days, viz. for S. Stephen, S. John Baptist, S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Larwence, S. Cyprian, S. Eusebius of Verceille, S. Michael, and the Martyrs of Turin. There is one upon the Creed, another upon Watchfulness, another upon that Custom of giving Thanks after Meat, Two against Covetousness, Two more upon Alms-giving, a Discourse upon the Eclipse of the Moon, and a Sermon upon these words of Isaiah, Thy Wine is mixt with Water. In all there are Sixty Three of them. Several others are mingled among the Sermons of S. Austin, and S. Ambrose, for it is apparent, that they are not those Fathers, but this Bishops. For besides, that they are for the most part taken notice of by Gennadius, they are of the same Stile. It is likely, that there are also others among the Sermons of the Latin Fathers which ought to be re∣stored to this Father. His Sermons are short and weak, they have neither Ornament, Beauty, nor Lostiness, the Stile of them is mean, and the Sence ordinary, they contain nothing in them very remarkable. They have been Printed at Cologne in 1535, at Antwerp 1618, at Rome in 1564, and 1572, at Paris in 1614, and 1623, with the Works of S. Leo, and in the Bibli∣otheca

Patrum, [Tome VI. Part 1.] [At Lyons in 1633, and again at Cologne in 1678, with Chrysologus's Homilies joined to them.] F. Mabillon in the First part of his Musaeum Italicum hath Published Twelve Homilies of S. Maximus's, which he thought to be new, but they had been Printed Three times before among the Works of S. Ambrose.

VALERIAN.

VALERIANUS or VALERUS, Bishop of a 1.162 Cemele, a City of the Sea-Alps, an Ancient Bishoprick, subject to the Metropolis of Ambrun, flourished in the Popedom * 1.163 of S. Leo. We have a Letter of this Pope's to the Bishops of France, in the Inscription of which we find the Name of Valerian, and a Letter of the Bishops of France, in the Subscri∣ption of which we find it also. He was present at the Council of Ries in 439. at the 3d. Council of Arles in 455, to which he was summoned by Ravennius, to determine the difference between Theodorus Bishop of Frejus, and Faustus Abbot of Lerins. He took the part of Faustus and the Monastery of Lerins, of which he was once a Monk. We have 20 Homilies of this Author, and one Letter to the Monks. The 1st. is of the Usefulness of Discipline. The 2d. and 3d. is of the narrow way to Salvation. The 4th. is upon the obligation of paying of Vows, and giving to God what is promised. The 5th. is of the Abuse of the Tongue: The 6th. is of idle Words, wherein he blames vain Talk, Detraction, Rallery, Songs, and what∣soever tends not to the Edification of our Neighbour. The 7th. 8th. and 9th. are upon the obligation that lies upon Men to be Charitable. He requires, among other things, That Christian Charity should extend it self to all the World, excepting no Man. The 10th. is an elegant Satyr upon the Life of Parasites. The 11th. teaches the Faithful to humble them∣selves, by acknowledging, That they are beholding to God for all the good they do, yet he maintains, That Man contributes to it by his Free-will: But as it would be ridiculous in a Soldier to attribute the Victory to himself, altho' he fought in it, so it would be a foolish thing for a Christian to arrogate to himself the Honour of the good he does by the Assistance of the Holy Spirit. We must give God the Praise of all our Labours, because they belong to him. The 12th. and 13th. are about the Love of Enemies and the Benefit of Peace. The 14th. is concerning the necessity and conditions of Christian Humility. The following Three are upon the Advantages of Martyrdom. The 18th. is in Honour of the 7 Macchabees. The 19th. opposes the Disorders of those who follow their Debaucheries upon the Sundays in Lent, under pretence that it is allowed not to Fast upon those days. Valerian exhorts the Chri∣stians to keep up the Lent-discipline even upon those days, and not run to any Excess. The last Homily is against Covetousness. The Letter to the Monks is a very little thing.

The Stile of these Homilies is not lofty, but plain and without Ornament, yet perspicuous and familiar. It hath neither Allegories nor Clinks of Words, nor harsh Figures. They are moral Discourses, very useful, where we may find very edifying Instructions and profitable Maxims. The Opinions of the Monks of Lerins and Priests of Marseille about Grace and Free-will, are scattered up and down his Sermons. He holds a necessity of Grace in order to doing good, but gives Man an absolute Liberty. He supposes, That the beginning may pro∣ceed from him, and that God never denies Grace for the Accomplishment. This Author was published [at Paris] in 1612. [Octavo.] by F. Sirmondus, and after Printed [at Lyons] in 1623. [1633.] with the Works of S. Leo. [They are in Bibl. Patrum, Tome VIII.]

VICTOR CARTENNENSIS.

VICTOR Bishop of Cartenna, a City of Mauritania, wrote a Treatise against the A∣rians, which he caused the Orthodox to present to King Gensericus, as the Pre∣face * 1.164 makes me think. He also composed a Tract upon the Repentance of the Publican, wherein he lays down Rules for Penitents about the manner how they may live conformable to the mind of Holy Scripture. He sent also a Book to one named Basil, in which he com∣forts him for the Death of his Son by the Hopes of the Resurrection. This Work is full of solid Instructions. Lastly, he hath composed many Homilies, which have been carefully kept, and divided into several Books by those who have been diligent to collect Works of Piety. Let the Reader consider what Gennadius saith of this Author. We have none of his Works

under his own Name, but there is among the Works of S. Basil a Latin Treatise, entituled, Consolation in Adversity, which hath also been put among the Works of S. Eucherius, which in all likelihood is that which Gennadius speaks off. Because it was written to Basil, 'twas thought S. Basil's, but 'tis plain it belongs to a Latin Author, and what Gennadius speaks of Victor's Treatise, agrees to this, for therein he speaks of the Resurrection, and the Book is full of Authorities and Examples of Holy Scripture. There is also a Treatise of Repen∣tance among the Works of S. Ambrose, which is certainly Victor's, for it ends with these words, Remember Victor in your Prayers. This, together with the Testimony of Gennadius, puts it out of all doubt, that this Treatise of Repentance is Victor's of Cartenna. But F. Labbe ob∣serves, That in two ancient MSS. this Tract is attributed to Victor Bishop of * 1.165 Tunna, Author of the Chronicon, and not Victor of Cartenna. Nevertheless I believe 'tis more likely to be this Victor's; for, 1. Gennadius assures us, That this last made a Book of Repentance. 2. That he prescribes Rules of Repentance in it conformable to Holy Scripture, which absolutely a∣grees to this Book, for he gives very useful Rules and Instructions to Penitents, which he confirms by several Texts of Holy Scripture. Lastly, this Treatise is in the same Stile, and written after the same manner as the Treatise of Consolation to Basil, which can't be attri∣buted to any other Victor but this. We have nothing particular of these two Books. In the Discourse of Consolation he demonstrates, by Examples taken out of Holy Scripture, That God permits Men to be oppressed by Misfortunes and Afflictions, either to punish them for their Faults, or to try them, or to heal them of their Sins and Passions, yea, for what Rea∣son soever he sends them, 'tis always for our good. He derides the Opinion of those who afflict themselves for their Diseases, or for the loss of their Members, because they imagine that they shall be raised in the same condition that they died, One-ey'd, Lame or Leprous, &c. This is a silly Thought, the Resurrection shall deliver us from all our Maladies. In the Treatise of Repentance he exhorts Sinners to acknowledge their Sin before God, desire Par∣don of him, to be touched with sincere Regret, and to do Penance. He discourages no Man, but invites the greatest Sinners to Repentance. He confirms all he says with Testimonies and Examples of Holy Scripture, as in the other Treatise.

S. PROSPER.

PROSPER of Ries in Aquitain, altho' he was a meer Lay-man a 1.166 did yet concern him∣self in Theological Questions, and was one of the most zealous Defenders of S. Austin's * 1.167 Doctrine. He wrote a Letter to him in 429. which is among S. Austin's Epistles, in which he propounds to him the Objections which the Priests of Marseille made against his Doctrine, and declares to him their Opinions, and prays him to answer their Objections, and confute their Opinions. S. Austin satisfied him by writing his Books of the Saints Predestination, and of the Gift of Perseverance.

The Letter of S. Prosper to Rufinus concerning Grace and Free-will, was also written in S. Austin's Life-time. Who this Rufinus was is not known, but it appears by the begin∣ning of that Letter, that he had been much disturbed at the Reports, which the Enemies of S. Austin's Doctrine had spread abroad to cry it down, and wished, That upon this occasion it might be cleared. S. Prosper, desirous to satisfie him fully, explains to him, what were the Reports which the Enemies of S. Austin's Doctrine had divulged, and upon what account they did it. He saith then, that one of the Fundamental Errors of the Pelagians is, That Grace is bestowed according to Deserts, and that they made use of this Principle to revive their Doctrines. That at first they had maintain'd openly, That Man may fully perform a

good Action by the proper strength of his own Free-will, without the Assistance of Grace. But this Opinion being visibly contrary to sound Doctrine, and having been condemned by all Orthodox Christians; they had owned, That Grace was necessary for the beginning, con∣tinuance, and final perseverance in Goodness, but yet had withal declared, That by it they understood nothing else but a certain general Grace, which makes use of the Freedom of the Will, and which informs and convinces the Mind by Exhortations, by the Law, by Instru∣ction, by Contemplation upon the Creatures, by Miracles, and by the Fear of Gods Judg∣ments: Grace which hath no other Operation than to admonish a Man of his Duty, and which differs not from the Law, and that Preaching which teacheth all Men, insomuch, That they who desire to believe, need no other helps to believing, and by believing they receive Justification upon the account of the deserts of their Faith and Free-will. Whence it follows, That Grace is given according to Man's Merit, and consequently is no more Grace. That this cunning design of the Children of Darkness had been discovered by the Judgment of the Eastern-Bishops, by the Authority of the Holy See, and by the Vigilance of the African Bi∣shops; That S. Austin, who was then, saith S. Prosper, one of the most excellent Bishops, Praecipua portio Domini Sacerdotum, had fully confuted it in his Books of Controversie, and entirely vanquished that Heresie; but that he did hear, That there were some Christians, in France, which spread abroad scandalous Speeches against his Doctrine and Writings, daring to averr, That it destroyed Mans Free-will, and under the Name of Grace introduced a fatal necessity, and that he would make us believe, that Man is compounded of two different Na∣tures: That if it were so, they ought to appear openly against it, and publickly confute these Errors by writing, and not disperse them secretly against a Person, whose Doctrine, concern∣ing Grace agreed so well with that of the Church of Rome and Africk, yea, and of all Ortho∣dox Christians in the World. That the cause, why these Persons acted in this manner, was, That they could not endure what had been opposed against those things, which in their Conferences they had started against S. Austin's Doctrine; That they knew well enough that if they came to produce their Maxims in any Council, a great number of S. Austin's Wri∣tings would be objected against them, which would evidently prove that we ought to attribute all the Glory of the Good we do to the Grace of Jesus Christ, and not in the least to the freedom of our Wills. In sum, That he hoped through the Mercy of God, that he would not for ever deprive those of his Illumination, whom at present he permitted to forsake Chri∣stian Humility, that they might follow the bent of their own Wills. The Error of these Per∣sons consists in asserting, That our Vertues and Holy Lives spring from Nature, or if they proceed from Grace, it had been preceded by some good Action or Election of the Will which had deserved it. S. Prosper undertakes to confute this Opinion, by proving from Testimonies of Holy Scripture, that since the Fall of Man, the Free-will hath no Power to do any good, or to deserve any thing, unless assisted by the Grace of Jesus Christ; and that all Men being faln into a state of Perdition, through the sin of Adam, nothing but the gratu∣itous Mercy of God could deliver them. To prove this Doctrine, he brings the Example of Children who die Unbaptized, and of those Nations to whom the Gospel hath not been Preached. He adds, That Grace doth not destroy Free-will, but that it restores and changes it: That of it self it can do nothing but Evil, and all the Work it doth, tends to Man's De∣struction: That Grace cures it, and makes it act and think otherwise; but he teaches, at the same time, that its Recovery proceeds not from himself, but from his Physician. Lastly, S. Prosper refells the Calumny with which they had blackned the Doctrine of S. Austin, by accusing it of introducing a Fatality, and admitting two Natures in Man. He maintains, That he never asserted any thing like to those Errors; That neither himself nor his Scholars hold, That any thing happens through Fate, but they assure us, that all is ordered and ruled by Divine Providence; That they allow not two Natures in Man, the one good, and the other bad, but only one Nature, which having been created perfect, is faln from that Perfection by the sin of the first Man, and is become subject to Eternal Death; but Jesus Christ hath restored it by a second Creation, and secured its Liberty by preventing it and helping it con∣tinually. He concludes, by exhorting him, to whom he wrote, to read carefully S. Austin's Works, if he desired to be well instructed in the sound Doctrine concerning the Grace of Jesus Christ.

But the Adversaries of S. Austin were not contented to divulge scandalous Reports against his Doctrine, but they set down in writing the pernicious Consequences, which they thought might be drawn from it. Vincentius, who was perhaps the famous Monk of Lerins, of whom we have spoken, put out sixteen erroneous Propositions, which he pretends to be main∣tain'd by S. Austin and his Scholars. This oblig'd S. Prosper to deliver S. Austin's and his Scholars Judgment upon every one of his Propositions.

Objection I. That our Lord Jesus Christ did not die for the Salvation and Redemption of all Mankind.

S. Prosper answers, That it is a true Assertion that Jesus Christ died for all Men, because he assumed that Nature which is common to all Men, that he offered up himself upon the Ac∣count of all Men, and that he hath paid a Price sufficient for their Redemption. But never∣theless all Men have not a part in that Redemption, but those only who have been regenera∣ted by Baptismal Grace, and are become the Members of Jesus Christ.

Objection II. That God will not save all Men, altho' they desire to be saved.

S. Prosper Answers, That it may be said, That God desires the Salvation of all Men, altho there be some that shall not be saved, for Reasons known only to himself; That those that perish, perish through their own fault, but they who are saved, are saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ.

Objection III. That God created one part of Mankind to damn them Eternally.

He Answers, That God creates no Man to Damnation. The sin of the first Man hath damned many, but God created them not to be damned, but to be Men. He denies not his Concourse for the multiplying of Mankind. He rewards many for the good that is done by them, and he punishes, in others, the Vices that he sees them guilty of.

Objection IV. That one part of Mankind is created to do the Will of the Devil.

His Answer is, That God created no Man to do the Will of the Devil, but every Man is made a Captive of the Devil, by reason of the sin of the first Man.

Objection V. That God is the Author of Evil, since he is the Author of our perverse Will, and hath created us of such a Nature as cannot but sin.

He replies, This Objection is also grounded upon the Doctrine of Original Sin. God hath created Nature, but Sin, which is contrary to Nature, hath been introduced by the Apo∣stacy of Adam.

Objection VI. That Man's free Will is like the Devils, which cannot do any good.

He answers, All the difference is, that God sometimes converts, through his Mercy, some of the vilest Sinners, but the Devils are past all hopes of Repentance.

Objection VII. That God will not have a great number of Christians to be saved, nor gives them a desire so to be.

His Answer is, They, that desire not to be saved, cannot be saved; but 'tis not the Will of God that makes them not desire it, but on the contrary, 'tis that which stirs up the Wills of them that desire it. God forsakes no Man that forsakes him not, and very often converts those who have forsaken him.

The Three Objections and Answers which follow, are bottomed upon the same Principles with the former.

The seven last are some Difficulties about Predestination, which come all to one Head al∣most, viz. If God hath predestined some to Salvation, and others to Damnation; this Pre∣destination is the cause of all the Evil that is done, and all the Faithful, who are decreed to Damnation, shall necessarily be damned whatsoever they do. The general Answer to these Objections is this, That God hath not predestined the sin of any Man. He knew from all Eternity the sins which should be committed, and hath decreed the punishment of sins, but not the sins themselves. He damns the Wicked and Impenitent, but he makes them not either Wicked or Impenitent. It is true, he gives them not the Gift of Righteousness or Re∣pentance, but neither is he obliged to do it. It is one thing to deny a Gift, and another to be the Cause of Evil. There is a great deal of difference between not lifting up a Person faln, and casting him down. God compels no Man to commit sin, yet he is not obliged to pardon every Criminal.

These Answers of S. Prosper did not satisfie the Persons against whom they were written, but they took an occasion from them to form some new ones, which seemed to be grounded upon his Answers themselves, and upon the Doctrine of the Writings of S. Austin, who was then dead. They are reducible to fifteen.

Objection I. That Predestination is a kind of Fatality, which necessitating Men to do Evil, damns them Infallibly.

S. Prosper Answers, That all Orthodox Christians acknowledged Predestination; That none yet owned a fatal necessity of Sinning; That Predestination is not the cause of sin, nor of the Inclination to sin, which proceeds from the Offence of the first Man, from which no Man is delivered but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, which God hath prepared and decreed from all Eternity.

Objection II. That Baptism doth not take away Original Sin from those who are not Predestined.

He answers, Every Man that is Baptiz'd, being endued with Faith, obtains Remission not only of Original Sin, but of all those Sins, which he hath freely committed; but if he falls into Sin after Baptism, and dies in his Sins, he shall be damned for the Crimes which have followed Baptism; and that God having fore-known them from Eternity, hath never chosen nor predestin'd that Man to Salvation.

Objection III. That it is unprofitable for them who are not predestined to live an Holy Life after their Baptism, because they are reserved till they fall into Sin, and shall not be taken out of the World till that happens to them.

To this he replies, That these Persons fall not into any Sin, because they are not predesti∣ned; but they are not predestined, because God hath foreseen that they would fall into these Sins: If God doth not take them out of the World while they are in a good Estate, it ought to be referr'd to the Judgments of God, which are unknown to us, but are never unjust; God preserves them, not that he may entrap them into their own Destruction, 'tis his Grace which is the Cause of their Preservation, 'tis their own Fault if they perish.

Objection IV. That God doth not call all Men to Grace.

The Answer is, He calls all those to it to whom the Gospel is preach'd; but how can it be said, That they are called to it who have never heard speaking of the Gospel.

Objection V. That of those, who are call'd, some are call'd that they may believe, and others that they may not believe.

He replies, If by Vocation we understand the Preaching of the Gospel, 'tis the same Gospel that is preach'd, every where, and by consequent all are equally call'd: But if we consider the Effect of that Preaching produced in the Hearts of Men, some reject it by reason of their Infidelity, which arises from their sinful Wills, and others receive the Gospel, being inwardly enlightned by God's Grace.

Objection VI. That Free-Will doth nothing, Predestination doth all.

He Answers, This is not so, Free-Will without Grace is unable to do Good, but being assisted by Grace it doth Good. It is Madness to say, That Predestination doth of it self work Good or Evil in Men.

Objection VII. That the Faithful, who are regenerated in Jesus Christ, do not receive the Gift of Perseverance, because they have not been separated from the Mass of Perdition by the Eternal Decree of God.

He Answers, It is through their own Will that they fall into Sin, and 'tis because that God hath foreseen it, that he hath not separated them from the Mass of Perdition by his Eternal Decree. It is true, he hath not given them the Grace of Perseverance, but he was not at all oblig'd to give it to them.

Objection VIII. That God will not have all Men to be saved, but only a small Number of the Elect.

Answer. If the Will of God to save Men were so general, why did he for so many Ages together leave Men in Blindness? Why suffers he Infants to die before Baptism? Neverthe∣less it is truly said, That God will save all Men, because there is nothing which he hath not made known to them either by the Gospel or the Law, or by Nature, 'tis from Men them∣selves that their Infidelity proceeds, their Faith is the Gift of God.

Objection IX. That Jesus Christ was not crucified for the Redemption of all the World.

Answer. Jesus Christ hath taken the Nature of all Men, but that they may be saved they must become the Members of Jesus Christ.

Objection X. That God with-holds the Preaching of the Gospel from some, lest they should believe and be saved.

Answer. That if the Gospel hath been preach'd to all the World, it is not true that God hath with-holden the Knowledge of it from any: But if there be any Men that have not heard it preach'd, we must own, that it is done through the secret Judgment of God, which we ought not to find Fault with, because we cannot understand it.

Objection XI. That God compels Men to Sin by his Omnipotency.

Answer. No Orthodox Christian ever held this Maxim: On the contrary, when we read, That God hath hardned Sinners, and given them up to their Irregular Desires, we say, That they have deserv'd it for their Sins.

Objection XII. That God takes away the Gift of Obedience from those Persons that live well.

Answer. This could not have been propos'd but by those who confound the Prescience and Will of God together; he knows Good and Evil, but wills nothing but Good; he takes away from no Man the Gift of Obedience, because he hath not predestin'd them, but he hath not predestinated them, because he foresaw that they would not continue in their Obedience to the End of their Lives.

Objection XIII. That God hath created Men for other Ends than for Eternal Life, viz. to adorn the World, and to be serviceable to each other.

Answer. God hath not created them that they should be damned; they damn themselves by their Impieties, but this hinders not but that they may for all this be profitable to the World.

Objection XIV. That those that do not believe, do not believe because God hath ordain'd it from all Eternity.

Answer. God foresaw it, but he hath neither ordain'd nor predestinated it.

Objection XV. That Prescience and Predestination are the same thing.

Answer. God hath foreseen and predestinated all Things that are Good at the same Time, because he knows them, and is the Author of them, but he hath foreseen and yet not prede∣stinated Evil.

S. Prosper, after he hath thus explain'd the Doctrine of the Church, condemns in Fifteen Propositions the Fifteen Errors which had been objected against the Scholars of S. Austin.

* 1.168 Two Priests of Geneva † 1.169 did also find Fault with some Propositions in the Books of the Pre∣destination of Saints and Perseverance, written by S. Austin, and sent the Places which disturb'd them, to S. Prosper. This Saint Relates them, and Clears them in the Answer which he makes to them; wherein he maintains the same Truth, That Grace is a meer gratuitous Gift; That the Beginning of Faith is the Effect of the Grace and Mercy of God; That this Grace is not given to all; and, That we cannot do any Good without its Help.

Of all the Books that were written against S. Austin's Principles, there was none that was in so much Esteem as the Conferences of Cassi••••. That Author, in the Thirteenth Confe∣rence, under the Name of the Abbot Char•…•…, lays down Maxims quite cont••a••y to S. Austin's. S. Prosper, who had already opposed him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 voce▪ * 1.170 attacked him by Writing; after the Death of S. Austin and Pope Coelestine, under the Popedom of Sixtus. Cass••an had asserted, as we have said, That the beginning of our good 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Faith proceed sometimes from our selves, and sometimes from Grace; That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have in us some Seeds of V••rtues; That our Free▪ will can na••••nally incline it self to G•…•… That Grace sometimes prevents it, and that sometimes its Motions anticipate th•••••• of Gr•…•…. S. Prosper maintains, That these Prin∣ciples are the Consequences of the Errors of the Pelagians; That it follows from hence, That Grace is given according to every Man's M••••i••s, and that Nanire is not impair'd by Adam's Sin; That they have been cond••mned 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ose Synods, which had condemned the Pelagian Errors, and in the Letters which the Popes had written against them, and that S. Austin had entirely vanquish'd them in his Writings.

The Poem called, De Ingrat••, Of the † 1.171 Ungrateful, is the most excellent Piece which S. Prosper compos'd about Grace. In this Poem, af••er he hath shew'd wherein consists the Heresy of Pelagius, and in what manner it hath been confuted by S. Austin, whom he highly extols, he saith, That there were some Christians who endeavour to revive that Heresy, by teaching, That Man's Free-Will can incline it self indifferently to Good or Evil. He makes the Pelagians to come to his Help, who exhort Persons to receive them, since they approve their Sentiments. He represents the Troubles and Perplexity they are in, and shews that the Pela∣gians have a Right to require Admission into the Church, or else they must be driven out who have espoused the same Principles. He afterwards confutes the principal Points of the Pelagian Heresy, condemned by the Church, which he reduces to Three Heads. That Man is born entirely innocent, That he can live in this World without Sin, and▪ That Grace is given according to Merit. He in the next Place shews the Doctrine of those whom he resists, which he also referrs to Three Heads. That God calls all the World by his Grace, which every one follows or rejects by his Free-will; That the Strength of Grace assists his Abilities, and teacheth him to love Vertue; That it is in the Power of Man to persevere in Goodness, because God never refuseth his Assistance to those that are inclin'd to Good. S. Prosper holds the contrary, That the Grace of Jesus Christ is not given to all, and he demonstrates it by the Example of the Infidels, who have never heard the Gospel preach'd, and because if God would save all the World, all the World would be saved; That it cannot be said, That although God would save all Men, yet they shall not be saved, because they will not; because, saith S. Prosper, it would then follow, That the Effect of the Divine Will would depend upon the Humane Will, and that God would help a Person in vain, if he would not be helped: That Grace doth not depend so upon Freedom; That it is not merely of the Nature of the Law, which makes us know Good, but it converts the Soul and Mind; That without this Grace the Law, Gospel and Nature were useless; That it plants Faith in our Souls; That it is not only necessary, as his Enemies themselves do una••••mously confess, to acquire a perfect Righ∣teousness and Perseverance in Goodness, but also for the Beginning of Faith, which is a mere gratuitous Gift, which cannot be deserved. This he proves by the Example of those who ha∣ving lived in all manner of Vices, have been saved by Baptism, which they have received at the Hour of Death: That the Error of those who attribute the Will and Desire of Belie∣ving to Free-Will, relapse into the Errors of the Pelagians, by giving that Power to the Free-Will, which hath been lost by the Sin of the First Man; That they make God himself unjust, in saying, That the Death of the Body hath passed upon the Posterity of Adam, which hath not been infected with his Sin. Then he confutes the Objections and Complaints of the Semi∣pelagians, which are reducible to Two. 1, That the Freedom of Man's will is utterly de∣stroyed by holding, That Man, of himself, is not able to do any thing but Evil. S. Prosper answers to this Objection, That the Sin of the First Man hath reduced us to that Necessity, but that we are not by that Means deprived of our Liberty, which always subsists, but which declines infallibly to evil, when it is left to its own proper Strength, but to good, when it is helped by Grace, which restores us to our first Dignity; That this Grace is the Original of all our Deserts; That the Example of Infants, of whom some receive Baptism and others are debarr'd from it, makes it appear that it is merely gratuitous, and that God gives to whom he pleases only. The Second Objection is this, That if the Grace of Living well were not given to all Men, those who have not received it are not to be blamed for living ill. S. Prosper also answers, That this Objection could not be proposed, but by Persons that did not acknow∣ledge Original Sin, because all Men being by that Sin become subject to Condemnation, and having deserved to be abandon'd for their own Offences, God would not have been unjust if he did not shew Mercy to any Man: That we must not search into the Reasons why he doth it to one and not unto another, because that is a Secret which God hath thought fit to conceal from us in this Life, as he does many others.

Lastly, He compares the Sentiments of those whom he confutes with the Principles of the Pelagians, which directly oppose the Grace of Jesus Christ; He owns that they seem to con∣demn their Principal Errors, by acknowledging that Adam's Sin hath made us Mortal, that, no Man can obtain Eternal Life without Baptism, and that Children are washed from

their Sin by this Sacrament, but that they still follow their Principles, in asserting, That Na∣ture hath yet in it self Force enough to chuse the True Good, and that the Saints, confirmed in Vertue, may resist the Devil by their own Strength, God leaving them to themselves to give them a greater Opportunity of meriting; That we ought to have these Opinions in Abomination, and must acknowledge that Sin hath made so great a Wound in our Nature that it is not able so much as to desire the Recovery of them from God, not being sensible of its own Misery; That the Gifts of Nature serve only to make us proud, and give us no manner of Power to chuse that which is really Good; That if it were not so, Jesus Christ would die in vain; That the Necessity there was that a God should die to save Mankind, ought to inform us how deep our Wound was; That the Faithful who are engrafted into Jesus Christ, ought to acknowledge that they can do nothing without him. He maintains, That it is foolish to imagine, that if the Saints have done no good Actions by the Strength of their own Freedom, they deserve no Reward; That on the contrary all our Confidence ought to be in God, and that our Vertue is so much the more worthy of Reward, as it is the more fixed on Jesus Christ; That Christian Humility obliges us to acknowledge, that we cannot do any good in this Valley of Tears, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, which doth not destroy, but restores our Freedom, yet after such a manner, as that all the Good it doth ought to be attri∣buted to Grace, and not to it; That, in the last Place, it doth not countenance our Negli∣gence, nor hinder Men from pursuing after Vertue, since on the contrary we cannot do a ver∣tuous Action without this Grace.

These are the Books of S. Prosper, which he purposely composed for the Defence of S. Austin's Doctrine, concerning Grace. He maintains the Principles of this Saint, but he mollifies them, at least as to the Terms, especially about the Subject of Predestination to Glory and of Reprobation, which he supposes to be built upon the Fore-sight of Man's Good-works, as the Schools speak. He speaks also of the Universal Desire of God to save all Men, after a very moderate manner. But he departs not from S. Austin's Principles, as to the Fall of Man, the Necessity of Grace, the Weakness of Man's Will, as also the Beginning of Faith and Conversion, and the Efficacy by which it works upon Men's Hearts.

Indeed he hath no other Divinity that what he hath taken out of S. Austin, it was that he might acquaint himself the better with the Principles of this Father, that he made an Abridg∣ment of Divinity, made up of certain Extracts, taken out of the Works of this Father. He puts some of his Sentences in Verse. We have yet these Two Works among the Books of S. Prosper; The one is entitl'd, * 1.172 Sentences gathered by S. Prosper from the Works of S. Austin, and the other a Book of Epigrams, composed of S. Austin's Sentences: There are † 1.173 97.

He consulted no other Author but S. Austin in composing his Commentaries upon the Scri∣ptures, as appears by his Commentary upon the Fifty last Psalms, in which he follows the Explications of S. Austin so exactly, that he doth nothing almost but abridge him, and put him into other Words.

The Two Epigrams which he hath composed against * 1.174 the Adversaries of S. Austin, are also a Mark of the Esteem he had for that Father. I see no Reason to take from S. Prosper the Epitaph upon the Nestorian and Pelagian Heresies: But there is not the like Grounds for the Poem upon Providence, which contains Principles concerning Grace, directly opposite to what S. Prosper lays down in his Poem of Ungrateful Persons, for the Author of the Poem about Providence maintains, That Man since the Fall into Sin hath still some Ability to do good; That the Will goes before Grace; That the Good and Sinners are equally tempted and as∣sisted, and that which makes the Righteous Men so glorious, is, that they resist, whereas the Sinner yields to them. These are the very Opinions which S. Prosper opposes in his Poem of Ungrateful Persons, and in his other Works: For though we should suppose with M. Abbot An∣thelmi, that S. Prosper sought for mollifying Terms, yet we cannot think that he proceeded so far as to deliver that for Truth which he had formerly confuted; besides, the Style of this Poem differs much from the Poem of Ungrateful Persons. The Author wrote after the Vandals broke in upon the Empire.

The Poem of An Husband to his Wife, which bears Paulinus's Name, doth in many Manu∣scripts bear S. Prosper's Name, and Bede says 'tis his.

The Book of Promises and Predictions is not S. Prosper's, for the Author is an African, and the Stile of this Work is very different from S. Prosper's other Works. Nevertheless it is at∣tributed by Cassiodorus to S. Prosper, but either it is anothers of the same Name, or in the time of Cassiodorus this Work was falsly attributed to S. Prosper, either because it was con∣formable to his Doctrine, or perhaps because S. Prosper Published it in the West. But howe∣ver that be▪ it cannot be our Authors. The end and design of the Book is to make a Col∣lection of the Promises and Prophecies contain'd in Holy Scripture, and to shew which of them are already fulfilled, and which were yet to be accomplished hereafter.

The Two Books concerning a Contemplative Life is manifestly Julian Pomerius's, of which we shall speak hereafter, [Printed alone 1487, and at Col. 1536, Octavo].

There remains nothing now but the Chronicon, Gennadius assures us, That S. Prosper had made a Chronicon from the beginning of the World, down to the Death of Valentinian, and the taking of Rome by Gensericus King of the Vandals. Victorius, Cassiodorus, and S. Isidore of Sevil, and many other Authors make mention of it. So that we cannot doubt, but that

S. Prosper hath composed a Chronicon. The first, which appeared under S. Prosper's Name, was an Addition to the Second Part of Eusebius's Chronicon, augmented by S. Jerom, which begins at the Death of Valens, and ends at the Year 455. This hath been since augmented 10 Years more in the Edition, which M. Chiffletius hath Published in his First Tome of his Col∣lection of the French Historians. This is the very same which F. Labbe hath Published entire in his First Tome of his Bibliotheca Manuscripta. It begins at the Creation of the World, and ends at the Year 455. But M. Pitthaeus hath Published another which begins and ends at the same Year, which bears S. Prosper's Name, but he gives it the Name of Tiro, which might make us think it some other Author's. Some believe that the First is S. Prosper's, and that the Second is not. Some others think that neither of them is his, others, that both are his. In my Judgment the most probable Opinion is, That the Chronicon Published by F. Labbe is the Genuine Chronicon of S. Prosper, and that M. Pitthaeus's is the same Chronicon, to which some other Person hath made an Addition. For to think, That there were Two Authors of the same Name, and at the same time, who have made Two Chronicon's which begin and end at the same Year, is very improbable to me.

F. Sirmondus hath Published a little Book intitled, * 1.175 The Confession of S. Prosper, 'Tis a small Book of little consequence, and unworthy of this Father. He made also a Paschal Ta∣ble, but we have it not.

Trithemius places among the Works of S. Prosper a Summary of Three Hundred Questions, but he seems to me to mean his Book of Maxims taken out of S. Austin, which perhaps was much larger than now it is. And indeed, This Book begins with the same words which Tri∣themius cites as the beginning of the Summary of S. Prosper. He also attributes to him a Treatise of Famous Men, The History of the taking of Rome, and some Letters. But since Trithemius doth not say, That he ever saw these Works, and he is not very Ancient, we c••••∣not much depend upon his Testimony concerning them.

The Chronicon of S. Prosper Teaches us, That he survived the Year 455, and Victorius writing his Paschal Rule in 457, speaking of him, as a Person then Dead, makes the time of his Death evident to us.

Gennadius says, That S. Prosper's Stile is Scholastick, and that there is great force in what he says. Nervosus Assertionibus. He treats of very difficult matters with much subtilty and clearness. He imitated S. Austin, but was more concise. His Discourse is neither Beautified nor Pompous, but Masculine and Vigorous.

These are the chief Editions of this Father's Works, 1. At Lyons in 1539, Folio. 2. At Louvain in 1566, [Quarto.] 3. More large and correct at Doway in 1577, [Octavo.] But some preferr the Edition at Cologne in 1609, Octavo. These works are also Printed with S. Leo's at Paris in 1671, and several times since. [Besides these Editions they were Printed at Cologne in 1565, Quarto. And 1618, Octavo. At Lyons 1639. And in Biblioth. Patrum, Tome VIII. P. 1.]

Of the Author of the Books, Of the Calling of the Gen∣tiles, And, Of the Epistle to Demetrias.

THE Author of the Books, Of the Calling of the Gentiles, hath been a long time sought af∣ter by the Learned. At first they were attributed to S. Ambrose, upon the Authority of * 1.176 some Manuscripts; but that Opinion was soon abandoned, when it was considered, that not only the Pelagian Heresie is therein spoken of, which sprang up after the Death of S. Am∣brose, but also the Contest which arose in the Church about the Doctrine, which S. Austin had maintain'd in opposing those Hereticks. Afterwards they were imputed to S. Prosper, because they were found under his Name in some * 1.177 Manuscripts, and had great Affinity with the Questions of which he treats. But many Criticks say, This is also a mistake, and that they are not this Fathers, some because the Stile is different from his, others because their Doctrine is contrary to this. Yet since there is no Manuscript to be found, wherein they are attributed to any other Authors, they set themselves to guessing. Some, as Latius, and Vossius, have judged them that Hilary's who wrote to S. Austin, which some have confounded with Hilary Bishop of Arles. Others, as Erasmus, have believed them to be Eucherius's, and find them much like his Stile. Lastly, F. Quesnel ventures to assert, That they are S. Leo's, having dis∣covered, as he imagines, an exact agreement in the Stile and Doctrine of these Two Books, and S. Leo's Works. He seems to have sufficiently proved these Two points, and many Per∣sons are of his Opinion; but M. Abbot Anthelmi hath contradicted it, making a long disser∣tation on purpose to beat down that Opinion, and at last returns to the common Opinion, and maintains, that these Books are S. Prosper's.

Of all these Opinions none deserve Examination, but those which attribute this Book to S. Prosper, or S. Leo, all the other are manifestly false, or groundless. S. Ambrose cannot be

the Author, because he was Dead when these Questions were under debate. The Stile of these Books, and of Eucherius's Works, is not so exactly alike, as that they can be attributed to that Author upon that ground only. They cannot be Hilary Bishop of Arles's, who was not of S. Austin's Opinion about Grace, but rather of their Judgment who are opposed in that Work. Neither Hilary's Bishop of Syracuse, nor Hilary's who was the Companion of S. Pro∣sper, (if these Two are Two distinct Persons,) since the Stile of those Letters, which they have written to S. Austin, has no resemblance to the Author's of this Book. Nor can they rationally be said to be * 1.178 Prosper's Bishop of Orleans, since he was so far from being able to write a Treatise of this Nature, that he was forced to desire Sidonius Apollinaris to write the Life of Anianus his Predecessor, not thinking himself Learned enough to undertake to do it himself. Nor Lastly, Are they * 1.179 S. Prosper's, who subscribed the Councils of Carpentora∣ctum in 527, and Vasio in 529, because the Work Of the Calling of the Gentiles, is cited un∣der the Name of this Author by Pope Gelasius in his small Tracts against the Pelagians, for this Pope being Dead in 496, there is no probability that he should cite an Author that Lived till 529.

The main Question then, which will deserve our Inquiry, is reduced to this, Whether this Work be S. Prosper's, or S. Leo's, or some other Author's which is unknown to us. Let us consider the Reasons alledged on both sides.

First, then it is pleaded for S. Prosper, That this Treatise bears the Name of this Father in many Manuscripts; That Hincmarus in his Book of Predestination, cites it under the Name of S. Prosper; That the Doctrine of this Treatise is very conformable to the Doctrine of this Father; that the Stile is very like his, and that the same Expressions are very often met with in them. As for Example, S. Prosper saith in his Poem, That Rome being become the Head-Church in the World, hath made her self Mistress by Religion of all that which she could not Conquer by her Arms. The Author of the Book, Of the Calling of the Gentiles, hath the same Expression, and uttered almost in the same Words, Ch. 16. lib. 2. S. Prosper in the Eighth Sentence of his Book of Answers to the French, saith, That God hath chosen all the World out of all the World, Ex toto mundo totus mundus eligitur. There is a parallel Expression in the First Book Of the Calling of the Gentiles, Ch. 9. De toto mundo totus mundus liberatus. S. Prosper in his Poem relates, among the Examples of the unsearchable Judgments of God, the differences which are to be found among Men upon the account of their Natural Endowments. The Author of the Book Of the Vocation of the Gentiles, has a like Compari∣son, lib. 1. ch. 14. Lastly, S. Prosper, and this Author, alledge the same Examples of In∣fants that Die unbaptized, of Infidels that are Converted at the point of Death, and several others to prove the same things.

M. Anthelmi, who hath undertaken to defend that Opinion, which seemed to be cried down among the Criticks, urgeth these Proofs more amply, and adds also some others, taken from the Agreement of Stile, Expressions, and Opinions, of which he produces large Paral∣lels, and at length adds to them the Testimony of Photius, who speaking of the Writings of the Western Bishops against the Pelagians in Vol. 54. of his Bibliotheca, says, That Prosper made some Books at Rome against some Pelagians in the Popedom of Leo, and after that this Pope suppressed them, by the Advice which he had received from Septimius, that they would raise new stirs and contests again. What Photius says in this place, cannot agree to the other Works of S. Prosper, which were written before the Pontificate of S. Leo. 'Tis then of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, of which Photius speaks in this place.

They who maintain the contrary, That these Books are not S. Prosper's, say first, That the Stile is very different from the Works of this Father. This is the Judgment which the most Learned Criticks of our Age have given of them, Latius, Erasinus, Vossius, Grotius, and ma∣ny other excellent Criticks, and very accurate discerners of such things, have been of that Opinion. And indeed the Stile of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, is much more Eloquent, Accurate, and Elaborate, than S. Prosper's, the Sentences are shorter, the Parts of it more equal, and better proportioned, there are more Oppositions and Antitheses both in Words and Sence; there are many more Rhimes, and it is discernible, that the Author of these Books delights to make use of them, whereas they are not to be met with in S. Prosper's Works, but in such places as they seem to come of themselves.

2. The manner in which the Author of the Book Of the Calling of the Gentiles, handles the matter he takes in hand, doth not agree to S. Prosper, who openly declares himself always against the Adversaries of S. Austin, praises that Father, stands up in his defence highly, al∣ledges his Authority, and makes use of his Words. The Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, doth not use the same way. He professes himself disengaged, and addicted to neither Party, who has no design to oppose any Man, but is desirous to compose matters, to go in the middle way, that he may bring both sides to an Agreement, and find out the Truth, without incountring any Man. He never speaks of S. Austin, nor cites any of his Works. Lastly, He speaks of that Contest, as a Person who had no share in it. He delivers his Thoughts, as a Man who would try himself, and give his Judgment upon a famous Question, but would not enter into any dispute concerning it.

3. The time when the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles was written, makes it evident, that they cannot be S. Prosper's. The Author says in the beginning, That 'tis a great while

since the Patro•••• of Free-Will and Grace began the Controversie. Inter defenseres liberi arbi∣trii & pradicatores gratia Dei, magna dudum & difficilis vertitur quaestio, &c. And a little after, De hac compugnantia opinionum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quaerere, &c. This beginning proves Two things, 1. That this Question was not a new one, but had been formerly moved. 2. That this Author had not written before of that matter. So that it could not be S. Prosper, for 'tis certain he had written upon that Subject in S. Austin's Life time, and immediately after his Death, 'twas a fresh Author, who was willing to clear that Question, and to settle Peace in the Church.

4. The Author of the Book Of the Calling of the Gentiles, carries the matter better than S. Prosper, for altho' he seems to agree in the substance of the Doctrine, yet he explains it in other words. He allows of a general Grace given to all Men. It is true, That by that Grace he understands nothing but our Natural Abilities, but S. Prosper never gives the Name of Grace to those Abilities. The Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, imparts it to Infants who Die without Baptism, S. Prosper on the contrary seems to exclude them from the calling to Grace, in his Fourth Answer to the Objections of the French. Lastly, This Author doth not accord with S. Prosper in the several ways of Arguing and Explaining him∣self.

Before we go any further, we must examine the Answers which M. Anthelmi gives to the Reasons which we have alledged. He says, in the first place, That the Doctrine of S. Prosper, and the Book of the Calling of the Gentiles is the same; That F. Quesnel did acknowledge it himself, and confuted F. Norris, who believed the contrary, which is true as to the substance of the Doctrine. But we hold, That this Author's manner of Expression is different from that which S. Prosper always useth. We own, That the Author of the Books of the Calling, sometimes takes the word Grace in the same sence, that S. Prosper does for the real Grace of Jesus Christ; but we maintain, That he hath also given the Name of Grace to Natural Gifts; and in that sence it is that he asserts, That it is common to all Men. Now we shall never find, That S. Prosper hath taken it in that sence. He owns this thing, he saith, That God hath always had a care of Men; That he hath called them by the Law, by the Light of Nature, and by the Preaching of the Gospel; but he hath not given the name of Grace to these sort of Advertisements. M. Anthelmi brings no Example of it. All that he proves, is, That S. Prosper hath acknowledged, That the Light of Nature is common to all Men; and that the Providence of God is over all Men, but that is not the thing he has in hand: He ought to prove, That S. Prosper hath given the Name of Grace to the concurrence of God's general Providence, that is to say, to the Light of Nature, Knowledge of the Law and Preaching of the Gospel, &c. But M. Abbot Anthelmi does not cite so much as one Passage, where it is used in that sence. For that which comes nearest it in the 139th. Page of his Work, where he speaks of the power of Grace, and of the means of knowing God by Na∣ture, proves nothing, because S. Prosper hath not given the name of Grace to those exterior means; he only asserts, That whatsoever mean God useth outwardly, 'tis always his Grace which inwardly attracteth. So that M. Abbot Anthelmi is at length obliged to own, That there is some difference between the way in which the Author of the Books of the Calling treats of the Questions of Grace, and that in which S. Prosper hath handled them in his Works. But he pretends, That he conceals himself by this means; That he hath published it without his Name; That he hath disguised his Opinions; That he hath suppressed the name of S. Austin his Master that he might defend his Doctrine more cunningly; That he hath gone a new way to work, and 'tis for that reason that he makes a shew as if he had never written; That he hath well enough demeaned himself in his other Works, and that he hath moderated the Principles of S. Austin; That having promised to write no more, he was forced to take such a way as he might not be known; That he had likewise disguised his Stile, but was forced to do it by the manner in which he had undertaken to compose this Treatise.

I leave the Reader to judge of the solidity of these Answers, and shall content my self to observe, That if it be allowed, by Conjectures of this sort, to evade such Reasons as we have alledged, there is no Critical Argument, how strong soever it be, which may not this way be easily overthrown. Why doth M. Anthelmi say, That S. Prosper conceals and disguises himself in that Work? How knows he that he did not put it out in his own Name? If it be so, what proof hath he that it is his? The Authority of Manuscripts, upon which he leans so much, will make nothing for him, if it be certain, That in S. Prosper's time this Work bore no name, and that it continued so a long time after in the time of Pope Gelasius. Why should S. Prosper disguise his Opinions? Why should be forbear to speak with that Liberty and Constancy, with which he always maintained S. Austin's Doctrines? Is it credible, that he was ashamed to use the name of that Person for whom he had so great a respect? Altho' he hath carefully, in his Works, rejected the bad sence which might be put upon the Expressions of that Father, and hath delivered them in a more favourable way, yet he always openly maintained them, he always stood up against his Opposers, as against Persons who were cer∣tainly in an Error. Lastly, tho' he purposely disguised his Stile, yet it is not likely that he could do it with so good success, for really the Stile of this Work is more curious, florid and noble than S. Prosper's Works are. It is not possible to disguise his Stile so. Men degene∣rate when they counterfeit, and when Men go out of their natural way, all that they produce

is deformed and imperfect. It is very hard to find out so many Rhymes, and so exactly frame his Periods, when he is not accustomed to it. Nor do I see, how the manner of composure of this Writing did oblige S. Prosper to change his Stile. Lastly, All that M. Anthelmi says against these Reasons, which are brought to prove, That the Book of the Calling of the Gentiles is not S. Prosper's, is grounded upon Suppositions, of which he hath not the least shadow of proof.

Let us now see if the Reasons which are given to fasten them upon S. Prosper be more sound. They may all be reduced to three Heads. The Authority of Manuscripts and Hinc∣marus, the agreement in Doctrine, and the likeness of the Stiles.

As to the first Reason, which is the only one, wherein we really agree; these Manuscripts are not more eminent than those wherein the Books De Vita Contemplativa, of the Contempla∣tive Life, made by Julian Pomerius, are attributed to S. Prosper, and the Authority of Hinc∣marus is not more to be regarded than that of the French Councils of above 800 years old, who have cited the Books of the Contemplative Life under the name of S. Prosper. It is well known, That Hincmarus doth often quote Books under the name of those Fathers, who were not the Authors of them, as the Hypomnesticon under the name of S. Austin; The Book of Pre∣destination and Grace, under the name of the same Father; The Book of the hardening of Pha∣raoh's Heart, under the name of S. Jerom; The Commentary of Hilary the Deacon upon S. Paul's Epistles, under the name of S. Ambrose; And the Poem of Providence, under the name of S. Prosper. But to return to the Manuscripts of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles; the five Manuscripts of the Vatican. Of these five, the most ancient is thought to be above a Thousand years old, and another also is very ancient, which both bear S. Ambrose's name; the three other, of which the oldest is not above 800 years old, bear S. Prosper's name. There must needs be also other Manuscripts, where they bear the name of S. Ambrose, since they were all along Printed under the name of this Father, before the year 1566. It seems then, That if we will hold to the Authority of the most Ancient Manuscripts, we must attribute them to S. Ambrose. M. Anthelmi ought to prove, according to his Hypothesis, That the first Manuscripts of these Books were without name, since S. Prosper's design was to conceal him∣self. Whence know we, That they who first prefixed S. Prosper's name to these Books, had sufficient information that they were his? Is it not most likely, that finding this Book without a name, the agreement of the Matter and the Doctrine, inclined them to put S. Prosper's name before them? And that others more Ignorant, tho' more Ancient, have also been not so lucky in setting S. Ambrose's name before them. This difference shews, That the Manuscripts are not to be depended upon, and that the imagination of the Transcribers, is the cause that these Books bear these Titles in the Manuscripts.

As to the agreement of Stile, we have already answered it, and shew'd, That altho' in the main, the Author of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, be of the same Opinion with S. Prosper, yet he expresses himself in a different way; and that he keeps a Method which S. Prosper never observed. Let any Person but read a little, a few Periods of both, the Stile is our strongest Argument, the difference is easie to be perceived. All the Tables of M. An∣thelmi don't at all deterr me, nor give me cause to change my mind. In all the agreement of Stile, there is nothing to be found, but some words which were in common use at that time. It would be very hard also not to meet with the same Terms in two Authors that treat of the same matter; nor is it at all surprizing to meet with the same Sence, and the like Expressions. If we would search S. Austin's Works, as diligently as M. Anthelmi hath taken the pains to do S. Prosper's, I do not question, but we might have as good success in comparing the Phrases of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles with his; and there are also Parallel Places, where the Sentences of S. Prosper, which he compares with those of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, are taken out of S. Austin, or are found in the same Terms in the Works of that Fa∣ther. But it is needless to go to Particulars, because notwithstanding all those long and tedi∣ous Parallels, the difference between the Stile of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles and S. Prosper's Works, is easie to be perceived, for the reason which we have already several times repeated.

We have now no more to do but to examine the Conjectures by which F. Quesnel hath been induced to attribute the Work of the Calling of the Gentiles to S. Leo. His principal, or rather his only Argument is the agreement of Stile, which he thinks he hath found between this Work and S. Leo's Writings. For having read the Works of this Father over and over again, and rendred his Stile familiar to him, he acknowledged him, as he says, in the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles. He perceived immediately his Modes of Speech, his pleasant Words, his Transitions, his Figures, his Fancy, his exact Periods, his rhyming Cadences, his Apostrophes, his Interrogations and Paraphrases. And coming afterward more strictly to examine this Work, he found, 1. That the time did very well agree to S. Leo's Age, who might have composed it under the Popedom of Sixtus, the Contests about Grace having al∣ready been very much agitated. 2. That the Country of this Author did also suit with S. Leo; That he was not an African, since he never quotes S. Austin; That 'tis not likely that he was a French Man, Gennadius not having mentioned him; That he is rather an Italian. The Purity of his Stile shews it, and this is confirmed by a Testimony out of Chap. 33. Lib. 2.

where he say••, The Barbarians coming to the Assistance of the Romans, have received that Re∣ligion in our Country, which they could never have come to the knowledge of in their own; which sig∣nifies, That the City of Rome was the Country of this Author. To this we may add, That these Books were never cited in Africa; That they were never seen in France, till the ninth Age, whereas we find them cited in 496, by Pope Gelasius, as a Work known and received at Rome. 3. This Author cites the Holy Scriptures after S. Leo's manner. They both of them use S. Jer••m's Version, they cite the same Texts, and use them in a particular way. 4. They express their Doctrine about Grace after the same manner. They both acknowledge a general Grace, and call the Elements and Creatures, the Leaves and Volumes, wherein the Eternal Law is written. 5. They have often the same Thoughts. They speak alike of the foundation of the Church of Rome, That God hath chosen it to be the Head-Church of the World, and that he permitted the Roman Empire to be extended over all the Earth, that Re∣ligion might enlarge it self the more easily, and that it hath entred into those places where the Roman Empire had gained no Power. Compare Chap. 1. Serm 1. of S. Peter and S. Paul in S. Leo, with Chap. 16. Lib. 2. of the Calling of the Gentiles. They both say, That S. Pe∣ter hath taken his Soundness and Constancy from the principal Rock, S. Leo, A principali Petra soliditatem & virti tis traxit & nominis. The Author of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, Lib. 2. Chap. 28. Ab illa principali Petra communionem & virtutis sumpsit & nominis; the same Fancy, Stile and Expression. 6. The Stile of the Book of the Calling of the Gen∣tiles, is exactly like S. Leo. We have already observed, That it is Elegant and Polite, full of Antitheses and Rhymes; that his Sentences are proportion'd and divided into equal Parts, which is, as we have noted, the Description of S. Leo's Style. 7. Not only the Style is very exactly alike, but they use often the same Words, and that peculiar ones. We may see a large List of them, p. 375. of the Second Tome of Father Quesnel's Edition. He joyns to it, in the following Pages, a comparison of many Phrases, and thinks that by this he hath invincibly prov'd, That the Work Of the Calling of the Gentiles is Saint Leo's.

But his Adversary undertakes to prove Two Things against him,

• 1. That all his Conjectures are weak.
• 2. That there are Arguments which clearly shew, and put it out of question, That the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles are not S. Leo's.

But since it is needless to enter upon a Discussion of the First, if the Last be well proved, therefore I will begin with the Latter.

Let us then take a View of the Reasons which do invincibly prove, according to M. Anthelmi, that S. Leo is not the Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gen∣tiles. The First is taken from the Friendship that was between S. Leo and Cassian: Is it cre∣dible that he would desire Cassian to write in the Name of the Church against Nestorius, as he did, and would have had so much Respect for him, if he had thought him in an Error? And would he have written the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, against his Doctrine, if he had known that he had forsaken it, as F. Quesnel maintains? I believe that he hath no Proofs, and that it is not probable that Cassian changed his Opinion. I own that S. Leo was one of his Friends, but this is no Proof that he was of his Judgment, nor can any Man be invincibly convinc'd thereby that he did not write the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles: All his Days he did write against his best Friends, when he found them not of his Opinion: All that he could do for his Friend was to direct him, not to attack him directly, to treat him mildly, and instruct him rather than oppose him. Now this is what the Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles does; The Differences between S. Austin's Scholars and their Adversaries were never look'd upon as Heretical. S. Prosper, though he was zealous for S. Austin's Doctrines, yet owns that those whom he oppos'd were Orthodox Christians, and ought for all that to be reckon'd in the Church. The Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, speaks in a more moderate way and account of those Contests, as about some hard Questions, which were debated among found Christians. Cassian and the rest of his Party defended their Sentiments with much Calmness, without Passion or Obstinacy: All which evinceth that S. Leo might very well make use of Cassian to write against the Nestorians, and yet some Time after make these Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, in which he differs from him about Grace.

But at least, says M. Anthelmi for the Second Reason, he would have preserved some Respect for Cassian and his Scholars, he would not call their Disputes, Calumniosa certamina, Mere Scoldings; he would not have accused them of making Objections full of Calumnies, of denying things impiously, of being presumptuous and ignorant, of laying Snares to deceive, of making impudent Complaints, and of having deceitful Intentions; yet these Terms are dispers'd up and down the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, and applied to them who do not give enough to Grace.

It is answer'd, That S. Leo respects Cassian enough in not naming him, in not confuting him expressly, in only speaking in general against those who attribute too much to Free-Will, in handling this Question as a Person not engag'd to any Party, in not declaring himself highly against them. As to the harsh Words which he alledges, they fall not upon Cassian or his Scho∣lars,

but upon the erroneous Consequences which may be drawn from their Principles; besides, they are nor so abusive and reproachful as is suppos'd a 1.180.

The Third Argument is unanswerable in M. Anthelmi's Judgment: He hath been con∣vinced by it, and it ought to satisfy every Man almost. It is this, saith he,

If S. Leo be∣ing yet but a Deacon, had so strongly oppos'd the Semi-Pelagians, it is not credible that he would have let them alone all the Time he was Pope; It was a vile and strange thing, that he should do nothing against them, and so much the rather, because during the Time of his Popedom that Party was honour'd and preferr'd. His Successor Hilarius made Fau∣stus, the Head of them, President of a Council at Rome. If it be said, That S. Leo dis∣sembled and conniv'd at those Errors, then we do not rightly give him the Title of a De∣clared Enemy of the Hereticks; and an undaunted Defender of the Truth. He is com∣par'd to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah to no purpose; because he oppos'd the Pelagians with so much Zeal, why should he neglect to encounter the Semi-Pelagians, if he had been of the Mind of the Author of the Books Of the Calling, and believed with him, that they reviv'd the Errors of Pelagius? Would not S. Prosper his Secretary, a grand Enemy of the Semi-Pelagians, have stirr'd up his Zeal against them?

I much doubt whether these fine Declamations can pass for invincible and unanswerable Proofs with any Man of Wit. The Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, hath not treated the Defenders of Free-Will as Hereticks. He rejects their Opinion as a particular Person. Let us then suppose that S. Leo is the Author of it, what Necessity had he, that being raised to the Popedom, he should condemn them under the Title of Pope, as Formal Hereticks? Though he believed, That the Opinions which he confuted in these Books were Heretical, yet why should he per∣secute those Persons who held them in silence, without being positive in asserting them, or combining into a Sect or Party? I do not see that there was any Dispute upon that Subject under his Pontificate; the Contest did not begin a fresh till a long Time after: Let him tell us what occasion S. Leo had to condemn the Semi-Pelagians? Were they ever brought before his Tribunal? Did any Person write to him against them? Did they publish any Books to main∣tain their Opinions during his Pontificate? There is not the least proof of all this. But some of that Party were honour'd and preferr'd, they were made Abbots and Bishops in France, S. Leo ought not to have suffer'd it: As if in those Times there had been any need of the Pope's Bulls to be made a Bishop: But his Successor Hilarius made Faustus of Ries, who was head of that Party, President of a Council at Rome (he is mistaken in construing the Word Praesidere, for it doth not signify to preside, but only to be present, Praesidente Fratrum nume∣ros•• Concilio, a numerous Assembly of the Brethren being present.) Can it hence be gather'd, that S. Leo favour'd the Semi-Pelagians? I do not believe that many would draw such a Con∣clusion from it, altho Faustus was present at a Council in Rome, yet he had then written no Book, wherein he declared against S. Austin's Doctrines? He did not do this till a long Time after; and altho it had been already compos'd, it could not be inferr'd from thence that he had Pope Hilary's Approbation of it, and much less that S. Leo his Predecessor was a Favourer of him. But that which looks more surprizing is this, That M. Anthelmi did not take notice that all these Arguments are quite overthrown by that One Example of S. Prosper, for he per∣ceives not that this Father wrote nothing against those who are called Semi-Pelagians, after his Book against Cassian, which was publish'd before S. Leo was Pope. If it were true that they were active under this Pope, why was he silent himself, or at least why did he not attack them openly, as he did heretofore? Why did he not use his Interest against them? Why did he not accuse them to S. Leo? If this sort of Reasoning be not allowable in respect of S. Prosper, why doth M. Anthelmi enforce it, in respect of S. Leo? We may near as well conclude, That S. Prosper never wrote any thing against the Semi-Pelagians.

The Argument which is taken from the Testimony of Pope Gelasius, who cites the Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, under the Name of a Doctor of the Church, without naming it, seems more plausible than the former, for if this Work were S. Leo's

how could Gelasius be ignorant of it? Or knowing it, what Reason could he have to conceal his Name? But this Objection only proves, That his Work was without a Name, as I see all the World agrees, and then all the Question will be, To know if it is not S. Leo's, who com∣posed it, without putting his Name to it? The Reasons of F. Quesnel seem to make this Opinion very probable; let us now see what Answers are given, since we are already certain that there is no Argument to shew, that these Books cannot be S. Leo's. His Adversary contents himself to prove, That S. Prosper uses S. Jerom's Version as well as S. Leo, and that sometimes also he uses the Ancient Version, and thinks that thus he hath answered the strongest Argu∣ment. I will not stay here to examine which of the two hath Injury or Reason on his Side, I will only confine my self to the Argument about the Agreement of Style, in which M. Anthelmi yields to his Adversary, since he owns, That 'tis the Agreement of Style of the Epistles and Sermons of S. Leo with the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, that makes him attribute those Books to S. Prosper. This Concession is very favourable to F. Quesnel, for it being very certain that the Sermons and Epistles which bear the Name of S. Leo are that Fathers; but not so, that the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles are S. Prosper's; if it be necessary that these Works must both of them belong to one and the same Author, it is much more reasonable to attribute the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles to S. Leo, than to fix the Epistles and Sermons of S. Leo upon S. Prosper. F. Alexander and F. Oudin pretend that there is some Difference of Stile, and that there are not in S. Leo so many Rhymes and Figures, nor such a Cadence: But they seem not to have taken sufficient notice of it, for if there be any Difference 'tis inconsiderable.

From all that we have hitherto said concerning the Author Of the Calling of the Gen∣tiles, we may conclude, 1. That this Book did at first appear without the Name of the Author. 2. That it was made since the Year 430, and before 496. 3. That in the Time of Pope Gelasius, the Work was known, but it was then without Name. 4. That since it hath born the Name of S. Ambrose in some Manuscripts, and of S. Prosper in others. 5. That 'tis certainly none of S. Ambrose's. 6. That there is no probability that 'tis S. Prosper's. 7. That the Author having hitherto been always unknown, 'tis hard to know now whose it is. 8. That if we judge by the manner of treating of Things, and by the Agreement of Style, S. Leo stands fairest for it. 9. That there is nothing to prove that this Work is not his. Nothing more can be expected but that it be positively asserted to be S. Leo's: But that I dare not do upon the mere Conformity of Style, although, I confess, it renders F. Quesnel's Opinion extreamly probable.

I have given no Answer to the Testimony of Photius alledged by M. Anthelmi, but it is nothing to our Purpose. It appears that that Author had a very confused Knowledge of the History of the Pelagians, and that the Differences about S. Austin's Doctrine were not form'd till after his Death. What he says concerning S. Prosper, That he opposed the Remnants of the Pelagians, under the Pontificate of S. Leo, is wholly imaginary. He had heard say, That S. Prosper had written about Grace, and thought he attack'd the Pelagians; and knowing by Septimius's Letter, and S. Leo's to Januarius Bishop of Aquileia, That they had raised some Commotions under the Pontificate of this Pope, he thought that it was at this Time that S. Prosper had opposed them, and so much the rather, because he knew that S. Prosper was then at Rome: But it is discernable enough that Photius speaks all this by mere guess, and as a Person so remote both in Time and Place, as that he had not an exact History, but con∣triv'd this Model of his own. But yet, were it true, that S. Prosper had written against the Pelagians in the Popedom of S. Leo, 'tis a mere Surmise to apply it to the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, which are not written against the Pelagians. How knows he that Photius speaks of these Books? Is it not possible that S. Prosper might compose some other Books against the Pelagians at that Time, which are not come to us? But there is no room, as we have already said, to bottom upon this Passage of Photius, who himself doth not assert this, but merely by Conjecture.

But we have insisted too much upon the Criticism of this Work, an extract of it will be more useful, and less tedious. The Author in the beginning propounds the Question, which he designs to handle in these words. There is a great and difficult Question moved a long time since, between the Patrons of Free-Will, and the Preachers of Grace, viz. Whether God Wills that all Men should be saved? And because that cannot be denied, it is further demanded, Why the Will of the Almighty is not always accomplished? If it be said, That it depends upon the Will of Man, this seems to exclude Grace which is no more a Free-gift, but a Debt, if it be bestowed according to desert. It is further enquired, Why that Gift, without which no Man can be saved, is not given to all by him, who desires the Salvation of all Men? The design of the Author is to resolve these Questions, and to effect this, he proposes to himself to Treat, First of all, Of the Motions of the Will, against those who imagine, that they deny all Freedom who Preach up Grace, not observing, that they may as well accuse them of de∣nying Grace, when they suppose, that it doth not go before, but only accompanies the Will. For if we take away the Will, where is the Original of Vertue? And if we do not acknow∣ledge Grace, where is the Cause of Merit? He then distinguishes Three sorts of Wills, the Sensual, Animal, and Spiritual; the Animal is in Infants, the Sensual in Men without Grace, the Spiritual is the Will of those Men who Act by Grace. He distinguishes also Two sorts

of Graces, 1. General Graces, which are nothing else but the exteriour helps, as the Ele∣ments, Nature, the Law, the Preaching of the Gospel; and, 2. Special Grace. The first is useless without the latter, which doth not destroy Nature, but restore it, doth not take away Freedom, but enables it to act. Without it there is no good, all that Men do is evil. The light of Nature is not sufficient to believe, Faith is the Gift of Grace, it is Grace which in∣creaseth it, 'tis Grace which preserves it.

Having laid down these Principles, he gives Four Rules for the Explaining of such general Expressions of Holy Scripture, as concern the Salvation of Men. 1. That the Holy Scripture speaking of the Good and Evil, the Elect and Reprobate, uses such general terms in speak∣ing of these Two sorts of Persons, as if it would comprehend all Men in particular under this Universal Expression. 2. That the Scripture speaking of the Men of one and the same Na∣tion, useth such general terms, altho' it intends to speak some time of the Elect, and some∣time of the Reprobate. 3d. Rule, That the Scripture speaks of Men of divers times, as if they were the same Men, and of the same time. The 4th. That the word, All, is often ta∣ken for all sorts of Persons of all Ages, Sects, and Countries, and that it is in this sence, that these words of the Apostle may be understood, God will have all Men to be saved.

As to the general Prayers of the Church, he observes, that that's the reason of Praying for all Men, but that these Prayers are not heard with respect to every particular, altho' they be with regard to others; that the reason of this difference depends on the secret Judgments of God, and that it cannot be said, that it is the Merit of the Will which is the cause of this di∣stinction; That Grace is given to the Good, and denied to Sinners; That the Examples of Infants, and of such Wicked Men as are Converted at the Hour of Death, prove the contra∣ry. In fine, That Grace is an Act of the Divine Liberality; That we ought not to enquire in∣to the Reason, why God gives it to some, and denies it to others? Why he chooseth some, and doth not choose others; That this Question is unsearchable, and that we ought not to have recourse to Free-will for the Explication of it.

After he hath rejected in the first Book that which was the subject of the Contest, he finds out Three Truths, which he Establishes in the Second: 1. That God Wills that all Men should be Saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth. 2. That we cannot come to that knowledge, but by Grace, and that Merits contribute nothing to it. 3. That the Mind of Man cannot comprehend the Judgments of God. Let us now see the Consequences which he draws from these Principles, That we cannot give the Reason, why he puts off the Calling of some, and gives not his Special Grace to all those whom he Calls. That all Men have had a part in the general Calling, the Gentiles by Nature, the Jews by the Law, but they who have pleased God have been separated from others by Faith and Grace, which altho' more rare and secret, was not denied in the first times. That at present, 'tis not equal∣ly disposed to all the World; That those to whom it is given have not Merited it; That he that hath received it must expect all his growth and proficiency from the same Grace; That nevertheless Man doth Merit by persevering, because he hath power to fall away; That one convincing Proof, That Men are beholding to God's Special Grace for their Conversion, and not to their Natural Goodness, is this, That since the Flood God hath continually Called Men by Miracles, Signs, and Prophecies, and that nevertheless no Man hath turned himself: That on the contrary, The Apostles have Converted all the World by their Preaching: Were Men better in the times of the Apostles, than before? Nay, Do we not know, that Iniquity then was greater? This is it that shews the Efficacy of Grace. That when it is said, That Jesus Christ Died for all Men, i. e. for all Nations, it was for that end that God had per∣mitted that the Roman Empire was so very much enlarged, that the Christian Religion might spread it self the more easily; that it so happened, and that Rome was become more Glori∣ous by Religion, than Temporal Power, Amplior arce Religionis, quam solio potestatis; That all other Nations have been, or will be, Called every one in their time; That in the Old Testament the Grace of Jesus Christ was hidden from the Gentiles, and yet it is not a whit less true, to say, That God will have all Men to be Saved in all times. But if God will have all Men Saved, Why are so many Damned? Our Author Answers. 1. That that is a Question which depends upon the secret Judgments of God, which are unsearchable to Men. 2. That all Men deserve Damnation upon the account of Original Sin. 3. That no Man may complain that he Dies too soon, because it is the property of Humane Nature ever since Adam sinned to be subject to Death. 4. That God exempts from this general Misery those whom he pleaseth, and that he by that means moderates the Punishment which all the Posteri∣ty of Adam have deserved; That others cannot complain, that God hath not delivered them out of a State of Damnation, because he owes that Grace to no Man. 5. That he hath im∣parted to all Men certain general Graces, which consist, as we have said, in outward helps; That Infants themselves are not deprived of it, because God hath given them to their Parents, who ought to be serviceable to them to procure them Salvation; That it is true, that beside this general Grace, there is a special Grace, both for the Adult, and for Infants, who are of the Number of the Elect, but God owes it to no Man. 6. That this special Grace doth not exclude the Will, or consent of Man, but produces it in him, makes him to Will, Believe, and Love; That it doth not nevertheless take away the changableness of the Will, for if it did then no Man could fall; That those that will, and do come, are called by this Grace, and

they that do not come, resist it by their own Will; That those that Perish are inexcusable, and those that are Saved have no cause of boasting of their own Abilities. 7. That in all times there have been general Graces for all the World, and special for the Just; That among these last some have more, some less, yet no Man may complain of the Mercy of God, since he owes nothing to any Man. Nor can we more reasonably complain of his Justice, since all that Perish deserve Damnation. 8. That the particular Election of some doth not render our Labour, Prayers, or Good-works, needless, because God hath ordained them from all Eternity, because this Grace is given for Prayer, and because Election is perfected by Prayer, and Good-works. 9. That it ought not to be said of any Man, before he is Dead, that he shall certainly be of the Number of the Elect, and that we ought not to despair of any Man's Salvation, because the more Holy may yield to Temptation, and the greatest Sinners be Con∣verted; That the Church also in her Prayers giving thanks for those, who have embraced the Faith, requests perseverance for them, and implores God's Mercy for Infidels, that they may turn from their ways and live.

After what we have said of the Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, it is not necessary to enlarge much upon that which concerns the Author Of the Epistle to Deme∣trias, since all Criticks agree, that it belongs to the same Author. Indeed they produce no other proofs but the conformity of Stile, but that seems sufficient to determine these Two Works to the same Author.

F. Quesnel brings some Reasons proper to prove it S. Leo's. 1. He says, That the Scrip∣ture is Quoted, as in S. Leo's Works, sometimes according to S. Jerom's Translation, and some∣times according to the Ancient Vulgar. 2. He produces many Sentences Of the Epistle to Deme∣trias, which are found in S. Leo's Works. He finds the same comparisons and applications of Scripture, &c. 3. He marks out the very words of S. Leo. 4. He saith, There is no probabili∣ty, that the Epistle to Demetrias was composed by an African; that a Man of that Country, mentioning his Religion, would not have forgotten to tell, how much S. Austin had been helpful to it, and that the Stile agrees better to a Roman than an African, and because he pro∣motes the Authority of the Church of Rome, in maintaining that the Holy See hath given an Example to all the Churches of the World, by Condemning Pelagius. 5. That there was an intimate acquaintance between S. Leo and Demetrias; That it is related in Platina, and the Roman Breviary, That he perswaded her to Build a Church upon some Lands that belonged to her, and Dedicate it to S. Stephen. In sum, That there is no ground to attribute this Work to S. Prosper; That the Stile is altogether different from that Father's; That the Inscription of the Letter in the Printed Books, Prosper Episcopus Sacrae Virgini Demetriadi, Prosper the Bi∣shop to the Holy Virgin Demetrias, is apparently added, since S. Prosper never was a Bishop. That the Author Of the Epistle to Demetrias speaks not of S. Austin, altho' he had often oc∣casion to do it, which S. Prosper would not have omitted. Lastly, He seems to say, That the Church of Rome was the first that Condemned Pelagius, but S. Prosper gives this Honour to the Bishops of Africa. These are the special Reasons of F. Quesnel.

M. Anthelmi on the other side maintains, That this Letter is S. Prosper's, and to prove it, compares several long pieces of this Letter with S. Prosper's Writings, but they do not seem to be more lucky about this Piece, than about the former Books, but we leave this to the Judgment of those who will take the pains to examine them. In the next place, he under∣takes to overthrow the last Argument of F. Quesnel, taken from the difference of which he speaks, concerning the order of time in which Pelagius was Condemned in Africa and Rome. He thereupon makes a long discourse, which it is not necessary for us to enter upon, nor dis∣cuss, since S. Prosper hath said in a place of his Poem,

—Pestem subeuntem prima recidit Sedes Roma Petri;—

We must understand by this word, Prima, either the first in Dignity, or the first according to the order of time; and so much the rather of the latter, because in another place of his Po∣em, and in his Book against Cassian, he places the Sentence of the Africans after Zosimus's. But the proof is not worth our trouble, we must own 'tis one of the least, and will tarry on it no longer. Nor can we say, that the Argument taken from the Familiarity between S. Leo, and Demetrias, is very sound; but yet M. Abbot Anthelmi doth not confute it solidly, by pre∣tending that Demetrias who is spoken of in Anastasius, Platina, and the Roman Breviary, is distinct from Demetrias. The Epithet, Ancilla Dei, The Handmaid of the Lord, doth suit as well to a Virgin, as a Married Woman; the taking away the Letters from the end is accord∣ing to the usage of the Latins, who follow that Termination. Lastly, Paulus Diaconus calls the Foundress of S. Stephen's Church, Demetrias. But why do we stay so long upon Trifles? It is more profitable, and more to the purpose, to examine whether the Letter to Demetrias be written against those Priests of Marseille, and against those other Christians, who tho' they Condemned the Heresie of Pelagius, would not agree to all the Principles of S. Austin, or whether he speaks only of the Pelagians. Altho' it be commonly thought that the Author of this Letter opposes the first as well as the last, yet I am of the Opinion of a Learned Person who discovered this to me. That that which is said in this Letter, Ch. 10. of some Persons, who pretending to de∣ny

all other Doctrines of Pelagius, yet retained this. That Grace is given according to Merits, is meant of some moderate and counterfeit Pelagians, as S. Leo observes in his Sixth Letter, where he speaks plainly of the Pelagians. For in both places it is said, That these Persons had retain'd this Maxim with a design to revive all the other Pelagian Errors, and to over∣turn the Doctrine of Original Sin, which they owned among the Orthodox, but denied among those of their own Party. Cum inter nostros Originalis peccati vulnera faterentur, inter suos tamen hoc tenere ostenderent, Quod primorum hominum pravaricatio solis imitatoribus obfuit. This does not agree neither to the Priests of Marseille, nor to those other Persons who did not approve all the Principles of S. Austin, for they did sincerely Condemn them who denied Ori∣ginal Sin, they were no Party, nor had any Alliance with the Pelagians. They were then the Pelagians in disguise, which the Author of this Letter to Demetrias speaks of in his Let∣ter; and the Sixth Letter of S. Leo teaches us, That there were many in the Popedom of this Pope, who made false professions of the Faith, and with a design of reviving all their Er∣rors, by putting some of them in disguise. S. Prosper says in his Chronicon, That Julian used his utmost endeavors to gain admission into the Communion of the Church, by pretending to renounce his Errors, but S. Leo hindred S. Sixtus from receiving him. And it is no wonder that the Author of the Letter of which we speak, wrote to Demetrias against the Pelagians, because Pelagius had heretofore written to that Virgin, and she was acquainted with Julian, and might have a Familiarity with some of his Friends.

The Author of this Letter in the first place commends her Noble Birth and Vertue; he observes by the bye, that there is no true Vertue without Charity, and the Love of God, which ought to be the Motive of our Actions. Then he speaks of Humility, first towards Men, and next towards God. This last consists in acknowledging sincerely, and wholly, the Grace of Jesus Christ. He asserts, That Pride was the Origin of the Pelagian Heresie, and 'tis Pride that makes some hold that Maxim so fast; That Grace is given according to Merits, a Maxim which is made use of to revive the other Pelagian Errors; That Christian Humility makes us confess, that no Man hath any hopes of Salvation, unless Regenerate in Jesus Christ; That it teaches us to give all Glory to him; That it makes us acknowledge, that without Grace we can do no good thing; That it makes us own, that the Operation of Grace is not prevented by the Will; That the Commandments are given to us, that we may fly to it for help, without which we cannot perform them; That Pride, which corrupts our best Actions, is much to be feared; That Humility subjects Man to God; That we ought not to trust in our own Merits; That no good comes from our selves, no not so much as a Prayer. Lastly, That all Good-works, and all Vertues comes from God. These are the Principles laid down and explained in this Letter.

We have already spoken of the * 1.181 Aphorisms of Grace. F. Quesnel, and M. Abbot Anthel∣mi, do both agree, that they belong to the same Author, but the one attributes them to S. Prosper, the other to S. Leo, they both ground themselves upon the Conformity of Stile. But it seems to me very hard to judge upon a piece which is so short as this is. We have alrea∣dy spoken our Opinion, and leave it to the more curious Criticks to examine thoroughly. Let those who are more bold than we are, positively determine to whom these Treatises ought to be attributed. As for us, we content our selves in matters of this nature, to speak what seems to us most probable, believing that none can go further than probability: Also we con∣fute others without passion, and will not take it ill, that others confute us. Nos sequimur pro∣babilia, nec ultra id quod verisimile est, progredi possumus, & refellere sine pertinacia, & refelli sine iracundia parati sumus. Cic. Tuscul. Quaest. lib. 2. It is needless to repeat in this place, what we have said of the Stile of the Books, Of the Calling of the Gentiles, and The Epistle to D••∣metrias. It is only worth our Observation, That whosoever is the Author of them, he wa•• a very Learned Man, of a solid Judgment, a fine and delicate Wit, and that understood well the matter he treated of. And altho it were very obscure and intricate, yet he explains and clears it with so much Elegancy, and so good a Method, that he makes it both pleasant to read, and easie to understand. He dissolves the great Difficulties, and moderates the Do∣ctrines which appear most rigorous, and illustrates those things which seem hard to attain. These Treatises have been Printed with the Works of S. Ambrose, and S. Prosper. And F. Quesnel hath Published a new Edition of them under the Name of S. Leo, as we have already several times observed.

FLAVIAN, and several other Bishops, who wrote the Letters or Records about the Affair of Eu••yches.

IF we would place in the number of Ecclesiastical Authors those Bishops who have written Letters, or presented petitione in the Councils, we might reckon Flavian, who was Patri∣arch * 1.182 of Constantinople f••om the year 446. to 449. among them. He hath written three Let∣ters against Eu••yches, of which the two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 [I••sc••ibed to P. Leo] are ••ecited in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and the first hath been printed by M. Cotelerius in his 1st. Tome of the Monuments of the Greek Church. We might also put in Anatolius, Flavian's Successor, who hath one Letter to to Emperor Leo, among the Acts of the Councils, and another to Pope Leo among the L••••ter•• of this last. Eusebius, Bishop of Dorilaeum; the principal Accu∣ser of Eutyches, would obtain his place upon the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of two Petitions, which he pre∣sented against him to the Synods of Constantinople and Chaloedon, or upon the Account of the Letter he wrote to Marcian. We must also place here ••••hanasius, Priest of Alexandria, and Ischyrion, and Theodorus Deacon of that Church, who presented Petitions against Dioscorus. Photius, Bishop of Tyre, may also be placed here, upon the account of a Petition, which he presented to the Council for the maintaining the Rights of his Bishoprick. Agapetus, Lucian, Theotimus, Vitalis, and some others, who wrote to the Emperor Leo, the Letters set down at the end of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, p. 904. unless they are omitted a 1.183. Here also we may enter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Priest of Edessa, whose Letter to Maris the Persian, made so great a noise, We might also mention Eutyches the Monk, Head of that Party, and Bassianus Bishop of E••asa [afterward of Ephesus] upon the account of the Petitions which they presented in their ow•• defence. But those; who have composed such sort of Works as these, do not de∣serve the name of Authors, and we shall speak enough of them, in relating the History of the Councils. We shall also find there two Letters of Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, the one to Simplicius, the other to Petrus Fullo, and there we shall speak of the Letter of this last, which we have not, as well as of the Letter of Petrus Mongus to Acacius.

Several Letters of divers Bishops.

THese are also Writers almost of the same rank with the former, who have not above a * 1.184 Letter or two, and those found among other Mens Works. Paschasinus Bishop of Li••yboeum in Sicily shall be first of them. Bucherius hath published a Letter of his about Easter in the year 445, which is found among S. Leo's Letters in the last Edition, p. 412. Julian, Bishop of Coos, is of the same time; we have only one Letter of his directed to the Empe∣ror Leo, which is at the end of S. Leo's Letters. We have also among the Letters of this Father a great number of Le••ters directed to him, viz. a Letter of Ceresius, Salonius and Veranus, Bi∣shops of the Province of the Alps, a Letter of the Bishop of Vi••••na to S. Leo; two Letters of the ••rench Bishops; a Letter of Peter of Ravenna; a Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, and the Bi∣shops of his Province; three Letters of Flavian, of which we have spoken already; a Letter of Marcian, Theodosius, Placidia, Pulcheria and Leontius; a Letter of Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, concerning Easter, recited by Bucherius; one of S. Petrus Chrysologus to Eutyches; one of Salonius a French Bishop, and another of his Brother Veranus; a Letter of Turribius to Idacius and Ceponius▪ and the Letter, of Leo, Bishop of Bourges, to the Bishops of the Pro∣vince of Tours. Of all these we have already spoken. To these Letters we must add a Let∣ter of a Bishop, called Rusticus, whose Bishoprick we know not, written to Eucherius, recited by F. Sirmondus, in his Notes upon the 2d. Book of Sidonius's Letters, p. 34. Two Letters of Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, of which one is in the 4th. Tome of the Councils, and the other in the 5th. Tome of M. Luke d' Acherius's Spicilegium; a Letter of Leontius, Bishop of Arles, to Pope Hilarius, in the same place, and in the Appendix of the 4th. Tome of the last Edition of the Councils; and the Testament and Epitaph of Perpetuus Bishop of Tours, in the 5th. Tome of the Spicilegium.

BASILIUS Bishop of Seleucia.

BASIL, Bishop of Seleucia, a City of Isauria, flourished in the time of the Contest of Eutyches. He was present at the Council of Constantinople, held under Flavian in 448. * 1.185 and at the Council of Chalcedon, where after he had begged Pardon for what he had done in the Council of Ephesus held under Dioscorus, he was restored, and believed as others.

We have at this day * 1.186 40 Homilies of this Bishop. Photius had seen but 15 of them, but the other being of the same Stile and Coherence, it cannot be doubted but that they are the same Authors.

The first of these Homilies is upon the first words of Genesis, In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. It seems to have been preached at the beginning of the solemn Fast of Lent. He therein describes very elegantly the Production of all Creatures, and the admi∣rable Order of the Universe. Speaking of the Creation of Man, he observes, That the words which the Scripture uses, being in the Plural Number, Let us make Man in our Image, is an Argument of a Trinity of Persons. He makes the Likeness of Man, with God, to con∣sist in this, that he considers upon the Heavens, but doth his Works upon Earth, and that he establisheth Government and Laws.

In the 2d. Homily he explains more particularly the Creation of Man, and the Formation of Woman.

In the 3d. he describes the Estate of Adam in the Earthly Paradise, and his unlucky and miserable fall. He had an absolute freedom. He might take all sorts of innocent Pleasures, because Pleasure was not then infectious and deadly: All the Creatures were subject to him, he could make use of them without Sinning, except one Fruit only. But the Devil envying his Happiness took on him the Form of a Serpent, and perswaded the Woman to eat the for∣bidden Fruit. She gave it to her Husband, and they immediately knew that they were naked. God called them, upbraided them with their Disobedience, and condemned them to different Punishments, both them and their Posterity; but he must not, for all that, despair of his Salvation. Jesus Christ is come to cure Man of that old Wound. He hath brought Medi∣cines contrary to those things, which were the cause of his Fall. He opposeth Solitude to Pa∣radise, Fasting to Delights, the Trophee of the Cross to the Deceit of the Devil; a Virgin conceiving without the Curse of Sin, to the first Woman; a Child born of a Virgin, and free from the old Disease, to the miserable Children of Adam. The new Adam is entred again into Paradise, from whence the first was driven; and from thence he sends forth his Darts to wound the Serpent.

Cain and Abel are the subject of the 4th. Homily. Moses sets down their History as a dreadful Example, to teach Men to love Vertue and hate Vice. The Stories of the old Testament have all no other end. This teaches us, That God debaseth himself to Men; That he accepts their Sacrifices, tho' he hath no need of them to instruct them, who offer them to him, and that he hath care of good Men after their Death. Abel is the first just Man slain wrongfully. The Vengeance, which God inflicted upon his Death, gives cause to hope for a Resurrection. Cain is the first Child of Eve, a wicked Man, an Enemy of Nature, whose Crimes and Punishments are there painted in a lively manner.

The 5th. Homily is concerning Noab and the Flood. 'Twas Man's sins that brought it upon him; he delayed it as long as he could; he admonished them several times; he invited them to Repentance; but Men not growing better by his Admonitions, were all overwhelmed with a Deluge, except Noah and his Family, who were saved in the Ark. The Wood, which was the instrument of Man's Destruction in Adam, was the Instrument of their safety in the times of Noah.

The 6th. is also about some Question, which might be made concerning the Deluge. He ob∣serves there, That the Sons of God, of whom 'tis said, that they had Commerce with the Daughters of Men, are not the Angels, but the Posterity of Seth, who had Commerce with the Race of Cain. He gives the reason of the difference of Clean and Unclean Beasts. He saith, That God commanded it, that he might make the Jews afraid to eat of those Creatures which they were forbidden to eat; as also, that they might not adore them. He believes, That Noah was not obliged to hunt after all those Creatures that went into the Ark with him, and catch them, but that they came thither of themselves. He teaches us to admire Noah's Dexterity in building the Ark, and the Providence of God in the course of the Flood.

In the 7th. he propounds to our observation the ready Obedience of Abraham, and the blind submission which he yielded to the Command of God in preparing himself to sacrifice his Son. He describes this History in a very affecting manner.

The 8th. gives us the perfect History of Joseph, and makes a faithful Description of his Vertues.

The 9th. manifests to us the Providence of God in the Life of Moses.

The 10th. compares Elisha to Jesus Christ, and the Son of the Shunamite, raised from the dead by that Prophet, with the Gentiles.

The 11th. contains some Reflections upon the Life of the Prophet Elias.

In the 12th. Basil uses the History of J•…•…, and the Conversion of the Ninevites, to prove how great the mer•••• and goodness of God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 towards Sinners.

In the 13th. he explains the resemblances of Jonas to Jesus Christ.

The 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th. are upon King David. In the three first he extolls the spe∣cial Favours, which God bestowed upon that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 King. In the ••••st he discourses of his Sin and of his Repentance.

In the 18th. he endeavours to create a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Action of Herod and Herodias.

The 19th. is upon the History of the C•…•…on.

The 20th. is upon the Woman of Canaan.

The 21st. is upon the Healing of the Lame Man, who lay at the Gate of the Temple.

The 22d. is upon the Storm appeased by Jesus Christ.

The 23d. is upon the Cure of him that was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the Legion of Devils.

The 24th. is upon those words of the Mother of Zebedee's Children, Grant that these my two Sons may fit, the one on thy Right Hand, and the other on thy Left in thy Kingdom.

The 25th. is upon these words of Jesus Christ to the Apostles, Whom do Men say that I am.

The 26th. is upon these other words of our Saviour, I am the Goodshepherd.

The 27th. is against the Festival, and shews of the Olympick Games.

The 28th. is upon these words of Jesus Christ, Except ye be Converted, and become as little Children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Wherein he treats of Humility.

The 29th. is upon these other words, Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

The 30th. is upon these, Follow me, and I will make you Fishers of Men.

The 31st. is upon what Jesus Christ says, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be betrayed into the hands of Sinners, &c.

The 32d. is upon that Prayer of Jesus Christ to his Father, Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from me.

The 33d. is upon the Miracle of the 5000 Men Fed with the Five Loaves, related in S. Matth. 14.

The 34th. is upon the Question which John's Disciples put to Jesus Christ, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

The 35th. is upon the Parable of the Pharisee and Publican.

The 36th. is upon the Two Blind Men cured by Jesus Christ.

The 37th. is upon the Bloody Murther of the Infants, which he describes in a very Elegant and Passionate manner.

In the 38th. he proves by the Prophecies, and particularly by Daniel's, that the Messiah is come, and that it is Jesus Christ. He fixes the beginning of the 70 Weeks at the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Cyrus, the Birth of Jesus Christ in the 29th. Year of the Reign of Augustus, his Death in the 19th. Year of Tiberius, and so counts 483 Years from the first Year of Cy∣rus to the Ascension of Christ into Heaven, which make 69 Weeks of Years. The 70th, ends the Ninth Year of the Emperor Caius, under whom the War began. This Writing is rather a Treatise than an Homily.

The 39th. is upon the Annunciation of the Virgin. In it he Extols the Dignity of the Mother of God, and stirs up our Admiration of the Mystery of the Incarnation.

The Last is upon the Transfiguration of our Lord. F. Combefis hath [Printed at Paris in 1656, Octavo] Published an Homily upon S. Stephen, which bears the Name of this Au∣thor.

As to the Stile, and manner of Writing, which this Author uses, Photius gives this Judg∣ment of them.

His Discourse, saith he, is figurative, and lofty. He observes, as much as any Man whatsoever, an even Cadence. He hath joined Clearness and Pleasure to∣gether, but his Tropes and Figures are very troublesome. By these he wearies his Hearer always, and creates in him a bad Opinion of himself, as a Person Ignorant, how to make Art and Nature accord, and keep just measures to cut off Superfluities.

Nevertheless we must own, That altho' he hath a great Number of Figures, yet he keeps up his Stile very well, and his Discourse very rarely dwindles into flat Allusions. Nor doth it render him ob∣scure, because he illustrates his Discourse by the distinction of the Parts, and Periods, and by the Elegancy of his Expressions, clears up the difficulties in the Figures. But the great number of his Figures takes away the grace of it, and so much the more, because they are used too roughly, and the Artifice of them is not sufficiently concealed.

Photius adds, That it was that Basil who was the Friend of S. Chrysostom, rather than Ba∣sil the Great, but he is mistaken in this. (It is perhaps neither of them, as we have observed elsewhere). But he is not deceived in what he says further, That in his Sermons he follows the foot-steps of S. Chrysostom, and that he hath taken his sence from his Discourses, especially as to what relates to the Explication of Scripture. Photius hath well done to make this re∣striction, for 'tis in that particular only that he imitates S. Chrysostom. The Homilies of this Patriarch of Constantinople have Two Parts, as we have already Noted. In the first he Explains the Scripture according to the Letter, and joins to it some Moral Reflections. In

the Second he takes in hand some Moral Doctrine, which he handles very largely. Basil of Seleucia meddles not with the last part, but contents himself to imitate the first, but has not performed it so naturally as S. Chrysostom. Photius also tells us, That Basil of Seleucia had written the Life of the Eminent Martyr S. Thecla in Verse. We have at this Day one in Prose, which is attributed to Basil of Seleucia. But there is no Proof that it is his; it doth not resemble his Stile, and it seems to have been compiled by some more Modern Greek. [Pantinus Published it in Greek and Latin, at Antwerp, 1608.]

The Homilies of Basil of Seleucia were Printed in Greek at Heydelberg in the Year 1596. In Greek and Latin with Dausquius's Version and Notes at the same place, 1604. This Editi∣on, with the Life of S. Thecla, in Greek and Latin, Translated by Pantinus, is put into the Collection of Greek Fathers made at Paris in * 1.187 1621, which contains the Works of S. Grego∣ry Thaumaturgus, Macarius, and Basil of Seleucia, with a small Commentary upon the Cano∣nical Epistles attributed to Zonaras. F. Combefis hath Printed a Translation of these Homi∣lies in his Latin Ecclesiastes of Greek Authors Printed in 1674. He pretends to have Cor∣rected many faults of the Translator, but if he hath rendred some places more agree∣ably to the Greek Text, he hath Translated others more Barbarously, and made them harder to be understood. He hath also Published the Sermon upon S. Stephen. These Works also are to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum.

[Dr. Cave mentions a Treatise of this Authors, Entitled; A Demonstration of the coming of Christ against the Jews, Published by Turrian at Ingolstadt, 1616, Octavo, and in Greek in Dausquius's-Edition, which this Author hath omitted.]

TIMOTHEUS AELURUS.

PROTERIUS Bishop of Alexandria being slain in 457, * 1.188 by the People of Alexan∣dria, Timotheus Aelurus † 1.189 was seiz'd on by the People, and Ordain'd in his Place by * 1.190 * 1.191 One Bishop only: And since he could not maintain his Ordination, but by siding with the People, he condemned all those who had communicated with Proterius, as Nestorians. Some Time after, that he might justify himself to the Emperor Leo, he sent an Apology to him, in which he endeavours to confirm his Heresy, by the Quotations of the Holy Fathers, under∣stood in a wrong Sence, making the Bishop of Rome, the Bishops that were present at the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, and all the Western Bishops to pass for Nestorians: But missing of his De∣sign, which he had to deceive the Emperor, he was banish'd to Gangra. Gennadius says, That he translated the Book of this Arch-Heretick into Latin, who was alive when he wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical Authors; but we have neither the Original nor Translation.

CHRYSIPPUS.

THE Time when CHRYSIPPUS, a Priest of Jerusalem liv'd, is not certainly known, yet it is most probable that he flourish'd in the Fifth Age. We find in the * 1.192 Bibliotheca Patrum a * 1.193 Sermon in Commendation of the Virgin, under his Name, which con∣tains many extraordinary Praises of her, like to those used in the Litanies. Photius tells us in the 171st. Volume of his Bibliotheca, That he had found in a Book, where was a Treatise of † 1.194 Eustathius, a Priest of Constantinople, concerning the estate of Souls after Death; a Piece, where it was related, That Gamaliel, and Nicodemus, who was his Father-in-Law (as it is there said) were baptiz'd by S. John, and did suffer Martyrdom. He adds, That this History was attributed to Chrysippus, a Priest of Jerusalem, who in his * 1.195 Panegyrick of Theodorus Martyr, makes mention of Lucian a Priest of the same Church, and that this last lived in the Time that John was Bishop of Jerusalem, to whom Gamaliel had related this Story, and shewed him the Place where the Relicks of S. Stephen and Nicodemus were, which, being found, had done many Miracles.

VIGILIUS DIACONUS.

GENNADIUS assures us, That this Author, whom he places in the Fifth Age, hath written, according to the Tradition of the Fathers, A Rule for the Monks. He adds, * 1.196 That it was read in the Assemblies of the Monks, and that it contains, in few Words, and in a clear Method, all the Discipline of a Monastick Life. This agrees well with a Rule which is to be found in Holstenius's Collection, p. 1. p. 89. [in codice Regularum, p. 89. printed at Paris 1663. Quarto.]

FASTIDIUS PRISCUS.

FASTIDIUS PRISCUS, an English Author, hath written to a certain Woman Named Fatalis, one Treatise concerning the Christian Life, and another * 1.197 of Widow-hood. * 1.198 His Doctrine is sound, and worthy of Esteem. This is what Gennadius informs us of this Author. Some have made him Bishop of London, but do not prove it. He lived in the Fifth Age under Theodosius and Honorius. We have his Book of the Christian Life among the Works of S. Austin [Tom. IX. P. 888]. It hath been restored to him thro' the Credit of an Ancient Manuscript Printed by it self by Holstenius in 1663, [at Rome.] * 1.199 The other Treatise is lost.

The Book of the Christian Life is directed to a Widow. He first of all derives the Name of Christian from the Unction of the Holy Spirit. He tells us, That all that bear that Name ought to imitate Jesus Christ. He then gives us a Reason, why God bears with Sin∣ners, and afflicts the Good. He Explains the Principal Duties of a Christian, Love of God, Love of our Neighbour, and Good-Works, without which he shews, that none can be saved. He at last describes the Vertues of a true Christian, and Exhorts the Widow to whom he writes to lead a Life conformable to that which he had drawn up. This Treatise is written in a very mean Stile. It hath more Piety and Plainness, than Eloquence and Loftiness. In some places he seems to favour the Opinions of Pelagius.

DRACONTIUS.

DRACONTIUS, a Spanish Priest, who lived in the time of Theodosius the Younger, hath composed an Heroick Poem upon the Six Days of the Creation, and an Elegy to * 1.200 the Emperor. There is nothing remarkable in that Work. It is written in a very Barbarous Stile. S. Isidore and S. Ildefonsus of Toledo speak of this Author. The Poem is extant in the Biblioth. Patrum [Tom. 9. P. 724], and F. Sirmondus hath Printed it with the Elegy [at Pa∣ris] in 1619, Octacto * 1.201 at the end of Eugenius of Toledo, who reviewed this Work, and put it in the condition that now it is.

EUDOCIA the Empress, and PROBA FAL∣CONIA.

WHO would expect to see the Names of Women among the Number of Ecclesiastical Authors? In all times indeed there have been Learned Women, but yet very few * 1.202 durst meddle with Divinity. It is more strange to see an Empress so employ'd, and nothing is more wonderful, (as the Learned Photius observes upon this occasion) than to see a Prin∣cess, amidst the soft and charming delights of a Court, to compose Books. This Woman of whom we are now speaking, was the Daughter of Leontius an Athenian Philosopher, and Wife of Theodosius the Younger. She composed a Paraphrase upon the Eight first Books of the Bible in Greek Heroicks. Photius assures us in the 183 Codex of his Bibliotheca, that it was an Excellent Work, and not inferior to any other of that Nature in the Elegancy of the Verse. But by confining herself too strictly to the Rules of Translation, she hath transgres∣sed

the Rules of Art. Nevertheless many approve of it, and affirm, that Translation ought to be so managed. She is not studious to please the Ears of the Younger sort, as Poets usually do, by allowing themselves the Liberty of changing Truths into Fables. She doth not divert her Readers by tedious digressions from the subject treated on▪ but follows her Text with so much Exactness and Fidelity, that they that read her Work, will be well satisfied with it. She preserves the same sence entirely in the same manner as it is written, without adding to it, or taking from it, and uses as much as possible such words as come nearest the Original. At the end of every Book she shews in Two Verses, that she was the Author of it.

The same Photius adds in the following Volume, That she had composed in the same Stile a Paraphrase upon the Prophecies of Daniel and Zachary, and Three Books in commendation of * 1.203 S. Cyprian the Martyr. The First contains the Life of S. Justina, the Artifices which Cy∣prian made use of to defile her, his Conversion and Ordination. The Life of Cyprian is re∣lated in the Second; and in the Third, the Martyrdom of S. Cyprian, which happened un∣der Dioclesian. There are many things in this History which seem not to be certain. It sup∣poses that Cyprian was Bishop of Antioch, whereas there was none of that Name there in the time of Dioclesian. I pass over many other things in silence, that are related by Photius, but are very improbable, and unlikely to be true.

We have none of these Works of Eudocia, but there is Printed under her Name, An Histo∣ry of the Life of Jesus Christ, written in Heroick Verses taken out of Homer, that is to say, there is not one Verse, which is not a piece of Homer's Poems. Upon which account it is, that they are called Centones Homerici, Verses made up of Fragments of Homer.

Zonaras, and Cedrenus say, That Pelagius Patricius, whom the Emperor Zeno put to Death, had composed a Work which bore the same Title, and indeed in the Catalogue of the Library of Heidelberg, this Book is attributed to one Patricius, who is there thro' mistake called a Priest. There is also in the same place an Epigram of Eudocia's upon the same Poem. The first Greek Editions of Aldus and Stephanus in the Year 1554, and 1578, have no Author's Name. Photius, who speaks of Eudocia's other works, makes no mention of this. All which would make me believe, that 'tis not hers, but Pelagius's, and that 'tis imputed to her for no other Reason, but because she had commended it in an Epigram, which was in the beginning of it.

There is a Latin Work of the same Nature, attributed to Proba Falconia, the Wife of Ani∣cius Probus, who also hath made an History of the Life of Jesus Christ, framed out of pieces of Virgil's Poems. It was Printed at Collen in 1601, at Lyons in 1516, at Franckfort in 1541, and at Paris in 1578. These Two Works are also put in the Bibliath. Patr. [Tom. V.] S. Je∣r••m in his Letter to Paulinus says, that he had seen these Poems made up of * 1.204 pieces of Ho∣mer, and Virgil, but he shews no great liking to them, and indeed, these sort of Works can∣not be very excellent, but are rather an Indication of the Author's Memory and Labour, than the fineness of their Wit, or the strength of their Fancy.

Proba Falconia flourished about the Year * 1.205 430. Eudocia was Married to the Emperor about the Year 421, and Died in 460, Zonaras tells us, That she fell into disgrace about a ••••vial matter. The Emperor having sent her an Apple of an extraordinary bigness, she gave it to Paulinus, who was highly in favour with her upon the account of his Learning; he not knowing where she had it, presented it to the Emperor, who seeing the Empress a little while after, asked her, What she had done with the Apple? She fearing, least her Husband should grow suspicious of her, if she should say she had given it Paulinus, affirmed, with an Oath, that she had Eaten it. This made the Emperor believe, that she had not an Innocent Famili∣arity with Paulinus, especially seeing her so much Abashed, when he shewed it to her. Where∣upon he forced her to depart from him. She went to Jerusalem, where she spent her time in Building of Churches, and did not return till after her Husband's Death. This is the Histo∣ry, or rather, the Fable reported by Zonaras.

* 1.206 TYRSIUS RUFUS ASTERIUS.

TYRSIUS RUFUS ASTERIUS, who was Consul in 449, reveiwed and pub∣lished Sedulius's Poems. Some have thought him the Author also of a Book, called, A * 1.207 Comparison of the Old and New Testament, written also in Verse, but others attribute it to the same Sedulius. It is an Elegy, which contains in the First Verse of every Strophe some Histo∣ry of the Old Testament, and in the Second, an Application is made of it to some part of the New. It is written in a very clear and smooth Stile.

PETRONIUS.

PETRONIUS, a Person of great Sanctity, after he had been for some time a Monk, was chosen Bishop of Benonia. He was Co-temporary with Eucherius Bishop of Lyons, * 1.208 as appears by the Letter of this latter, written to Valerian, concerning the Contempt of the World. He is thought, saith G••nn••dius, the Author of some Lives of the Aegyptian Fa∣thers, whom the Monks look upon as the Model and Mirror of their Profession. I have read, saith the same Person, a Book concerning the Ordination of a Bishop, which bears the same Name, but the Elegancy of the Stile proves that it is not his, as some have thought it, but his Father Petr••nius's, who was a Man very Eloquent, and very well skilled in the most excellent Learning, for it is Noted in that Writing, that the Author was Praefectus Pratorio. He Died in the Reign of Theodosins, and Valentinian. S. Eucherius cites him in his Book of the Con••empt of the World. We have none of this Bishop's Works. Some Lives of the Fa∣thers are attributed to him, but they are supposititious.

CONSTANTINUS, or CONSTANTIUS.

THIS Author was a Priest of Lyons, who wrote the Life of S. German Bishop of Antisio∣d••rum, recited by Surius on July the 31st. * 1.209

PHILIPPUS.

PHILIP, a Priest and a Disciple of S. Jerom, hath composed a very plain Commentary upon Job. He hath also written some Letters to his Friends, in some of which he Ex∣horts * 1.210 them to endure Afflictions and Poverty patiently. He Died under the Empire of Mar∣cian. This is what Gennadius says of this Author. We have yet a Commentary upon Job under the Name of this Father, Printed at Basil in 1527, [both in Folio and Quarto]. It is nothing to the purpose, that it hath been since attributed to Beda, and Printed under his Name among his Works, because this Author himself in his Treatise De Uncia, i. e. of the Ounce, cites it under the Name of Philip. But 'tis not absolutely certain, that it is the Work of the Scholar of S. Jerom. The Commentary upon Job falsly reckoned for S. Jerom's, is nothing but an Abridgment of this.

SYAGRIUS.

STAGRIUS, saith Gennadius, Ch. 65. of his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, hath made a Treatise concerning Faith against the inconsiderate and presumptuous Terms, which the * 1.211 Hereticks made use of to Abolish, or Change, the Names of the Three Persons of the Trini∣ty, by refusing to give to the First Person the Name of Father, which shews, that the Son is of the same Nature, and by calling him by the Name of the Only Uncreated God, without be∣ginning and cause, that they may make us believe, that the other Persons, which are distinct from him, are of a different Nature. This Author demonstrates against them, that the Fa∣ther may be said to be without a beginning, altho' he be of the same Nature with the Son whom he hath begotten, and not Created, and that the Holy Spirit is produced, altho' it may be said, that he is neither Begotten nor Created. I have also met, saith Gennadius fur∣ther, some Books intitled, Of Faith, and the Rules of Faith, which also bear the Name of Syagrius, but because they are not of the same Stile, 'tis not credible, that they are his. We have nothing more of this Author's.

ISAAC.

ISAAC, a Priest of the Church of Antioch, hath written several Books in Syriack; the principal of them are against the Nestorians and Eutychians. He hath also made a Poem, * 1.212 wherein he bewails the destruction of Antioch, as S. Ephrem before him had lamented the Ruin of Nicomedia. This Isaac Died under the Empire of Leo, and Marcian, about the Year 454. There was also another Younger of the same Name, who lived to the end of the Sixth Age, as S. Gregory tells us, in the Third Book of his Dialogues. The Treatise concerning the Contempt of the World, which bears the Name of Isaac in the Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. XI.] ought to be imputed to the latter, rather than to the former. Trithemius hath made a Catalogue of the Works of the former in the following manner, viz. Two Books against the Nestorians, and Eutychians, An Exhortation to a Spiritual Life; A Book of Fight∣ing against Vices; A Book concerning our Approach to God; A Book of the difficulty in pra∣ctising Vertue; A Dialogue of our Spiritual Growth; A Book of the Order of Monks; A Treatise of Humility; A Book of the Three Orders of Proficients; One of the Privacy of Monks; One of the diversity of Temptations; One of the Instruction of Novices; One of Repentance; A Poem upon the destruction of Antioch. He had seen these Treatises, and marks the beginnings of them. He adds moreover, That this Author had made several Homilies which had never fallen into his Hands.

SIMEON STYLITES.

IT is commonly thought, that this Famous and Admirable Monk of Antiquity, who lived 56 Years on the top of a Pillar, whose Extraordinary Life hath been written by [Antonius, * 1.213 it is extant in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 1.] one of his own Scholars, and by Theodoret, is the Author of a small discourse concerning Death, which is in Latin in the Biblioth. Patr. Others at∣tribute it, and that more probably, to another Simeon Stylites, who lived under Justinian, one of whose Letters is cited in the Fifth Action of the II. Council of Nice. But however that be, This discourse is a very little thing. He represents in it the state of the Soul after its se∣paration from the Body, and describes after what manner the Angels conduct it to Glory, if it be Adorned with Vertues; and how it is receiv'd by the Devils, if it be full of Vices. The Ancient Simeon Stylites wrote some Letters [to Theodosius, to Leo, to Eudoxia, to Basil Bishop of Antioch,] about the affairs of the Church.

MOSCHIMUS, or MOCHIMUS.

MOSCHIMUS of Mesopotamia, a Priest of Antioch, wrote an Excellent Treatise against Eutyches, as Gennadius says, Ch. 71. It is said, That he wrote some other * 1.214 Works, but I never read them. This is all we know of this Author, who hath nothing ex∣tant. There is in Lupus's Collection of Pieces, a Letter of Theodoret written to this Priest, by which we understand that he was Steward of the Church of Hierapolis, [now called Aleppo.]

ASCLEPIUS, PETER, and PAUL.

WE have nothing concerning these Three Authors, but what Gennadius relates in Ch. 73, 74, and 75, of his Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers of his time, viz. * 1.215

Asclepius the African, a Bishop of a small Town in the Territory of Baya, wrote against the Arians. He is also at this Day said to write against the Donatists. He is reputed to have taught excellently well Extempore.

Peter, a Priest of the Church of Edessa, an Eminent Orator, hath written Treatises upon several Subjects, and made Psalms in Verse, in imitation of S. Ephrem the Deacon.

Paul, a Priest born in Pannonia, so far as I can guess by his Writings, hath written to a Noble Virgin, Named Constantia, Two Books Of the preservation of Virginity; and some Treatises Of the Contempt of the World, The way to lead a Christian Life, and amend our Man∣ners. His Stile is mean, but seasoned with Divine Elegancy. He makes mention of Jovi∣nian the Heretick, the great Lover of Carnal Pleasures, whose Life was so devoid of Cha∣stity, and Temperance, that he Died in the midst of a Sumptuous Banquet, or as others re∣port, while he was writing of Love-Letters.

SALVIAN.

SALVIAN, a Priest of Marseille, very well skilled in Divine and Prophane Sciences, Ma∣ster of Bishops a 1.216, hath written several Works in a clear and elaborate b 1.217 Stile. These Books * 1.218 I have read, saith Gennadius, Three Books Of the advantages of a Single Life, to Marcel∣lus the Priest; Four Books Against Covetousness; Five Books Upon the Judgment; And another Book to Salonius c 1.219; A Book to Claudian, containing, An Explication of the latter part of Ecclesiastes d 1.220. A Book of Letters; And A Treatise, in Heroick Verse, upon the beginning of Genesis, in imitation of the Greeks. He hath also composed several Homilies for the use of some Bishops, and so many Discourses upon the Sacrament, that I cannot re∣member them all. He was yet living, and enjoy'd an happy Old Age, when Gennadius wrote this of him about the Year 495. It is commonly believed, That we have none of Salvian's Works, of which Gennadius speaks, but it is very probable, that the Eight Books Of the Government of God, and of his Judgments, are the Five Books to Salonius; And the Four Books Of Covetousness, are the Four Books to the Catholick Church. As for the rest, they are not extant.

In the First he undertakes to settle the belief of God's Providence, and to prove that it is every where present, Governing, and Judging all. This he shews in the Two first Books by Reason, Example, and Authority. After he hath laid this firm Foundation, upon which he builds his whole Edifice of Providence, he propounds this great Question: How it comes to pass, if this be true, that the Barbarians, and Heathens, are more happy than Christians, and that among Christians the Good are more Unfortunate very often than Sinners? In the first place he cuts the Knot, by saying, That he might Answer, That he is Ignorant of the reason, and that it belongs not to him to unfold the hidden Counsels of God, nor give a reason of his unsearchable Judgments; that it is sufficient for Christians, that the Holy Scrip∣ture hath clearly taught this point, insomuch, that they cannot doubt of it; That they ought to content themselves with what the Apostle says, That in this World we must suffer Persecutions. But because many believe, that worldly good things are due to them, as a re∣ward of their Faith, he saith first of all, That there are very few Men that can truly pre∣tend, that they have Faith, and are through-Christians. We are made Christians, saith he, by the Law, by the Prophets, by the Gospel, by Baptism, and by Chrism. Now what Man is there that lives conformably to this Calling? Who is there that observes the Commands of Christ in the literal sence? Who loves his Enemies heartily? Who utterly forsakes all? Who bears Injuries patiently? &c. False Oaths, Murthers, Lusts, and many other Sins reign in the World.

His way of handling this subject convinceth us, that his main end was to declaim against the Manners of his Age, which he doth in all the rest of this Work. He therein describes with all the Strength and Elegancy possible, the most common Irregularities. He inveighs particularly against the Uncleanness of the Theatres, and Prophane Sights. He gives a ter∣rible

description of the Corrupt Manners of the People, and especially the Africans; and ••e affirms, That as great as the Calamities of Africk, and other parts of the Empire of Rome, were, in being made a Prey to the Barbarians, they were nothing like to those Punishments and Chastisements which the Crimes of Men deserved. In this Work he speaks of the taking of Carthage by Gensericus, which happened in 439, and of the War of Lotharius against the Vi∣sigoths in the same Year, as of things newly done, which helps us to fix the time when these Books were written.

The Four Books of Salvian, Dedicated to the Catholick Church under the Name of Ti∣mothy, contain a Satyr against Rich, and Covetous Men, and some important Precepts about the Obligation of giving Alms. He bewails in the beginning, the general Corruption of Christians. That blessed time of the Primitive Church is gone and past, saith he, That time wherein all that believed in Jesus Christ did freely offer the Corruptible Goods of this Life to obtain Eternal Riches in Heaven, changing the possession of the things of this Life for the hopes of the good things of another, and purchasing immortal Riches with present Po∣verty. But now Covetousness, Lust; Theft, and other Vices which accompany them, such as Envyings, Hatred, Enmities, Roughness, Lasciviousness, Drunkenness, have come in their place, the Vices of the Church are increased as much as the Members. The Number of Christians is greater, but their Faith is less, for where is now the singular Beauty of all her Members? Where is the time wherein every one minded not his own things. Further, Having described the eager desires which the Christians of his time had to gather great Riches, he confutes the plausible Reasons, and ordinary Pretences, which the Rich Men made use of to excuse their desires of Wealth. The first, says he, are those that say, That the Love which they bear to their Children obliges them to gather Wealth, and get Riches, as if it were im∣possible to love their Children without being Rich. Must Avarice be the Bond and Knot of Kindness? If this be so, I must not condemn Covetousness, but that Love which inclines you to it. How so, Do you condemn the Affection which Fathers have for their Children? I am so far from that, that I say, That we must Love them above all things, but we must Love them as God commands us, by giving them a good Christian Education, and making them Rich in Vertue and Piety. Salvian after he hath rejected this foolish pretence, by which Rich Men attempt to cover their desire, proves, That it is not allowed to Men to make such use of their Riches as they please; That they are but Stewards of what God hath given them, and he will require an account of the Management, and use they have made of it, and condemn them to Eternal Flames for the misuse; That it is dangerous to put off our Conversion, or Alms to the Poor, till we come to Die, because there is a great likelihood, that we do not abstain from Sin out of choice, but because we cannot do otherwise; That Alms-deeds are of no use to them who live ill, and hope to buy off their Sins by the Legacies which they give at their last Gasp, but may be very helpful to those, who, having fallen thro' frailty or ignorance, are really touched with a sincere Repentance, when they know their fault; That he can say nothing of those who continue in their Vices to the last Moment; That he can promise them nothing; That it were Cruelty indeed to forsake them altogether, and hinder them from ap∣plying the last Remedies, but it would be also rash to promise any thing, seeing they offer themselves so late to be cured; That all the Remedies that can be used to cure their Sins, is nothing but Alms-giving, which must then be applied to them; That they ought to be ad∣vised to offer their Wealth for the deliverance of their Soul, but to do it with Tears, Grief, and Sorrow, because God doth not regard the Offering so much, as the disposition of the Heart of him that Offereth; That also when they Offer their substance to God, they must do it not with the Confidence of a Person that brings a Present, but with the Humility of a Debtor who would pay what he owes.

Salvian having thus shewn in the first Book, That Sinners are obliged to give Alms, he de∣monstrates in the Second, That this Obligation reaches to the Righteous also. 1. Because there is none of all those many Benefits of Nature, or Grace, which we are not beholding to God for, and more especially, for the Death of Jesus Christ. But are then the Widow, Virgin Consecrated to God, the Monk, and Clergy-Man, obliged to give all their Goods to the Poor? Did not the Law permit the Holy Men to preserve their Estates? The Law, saith Salvian, was perfected by the Gospel, all that was allowed then is not so now. Under the Law there was more liberty, Eating of Flesh was then commended to us, but now Abstinence is wholly Preached up; there were few Fasting-Days, now all our Life is a continued Fast. Revenge was then lawful, but now we must suffer, &c. Let any Man read the Precepts of the Gospel. The Apostle will not have a Widow to live in Pleasures and Delights, how can it then be permitted her to be Rich? Such Virgins as give but a part of their Goods are Fools, for the Lamp goes out because there is not Oil enough. It is needless to demonstrate, that Clergy-Men, and Bishops, are obliged to reserve nothing of their Goods to themselves, since it is their part to give an Example to the Ignorant Christians, whom they ought as much to surpass in Devotion, as they do in Degree and Dignity. For the highest place in the Priestly Office, without great worth, is nothing else but a Title given to an Office, Dignity to an unworthy Person, and as a Precious Stone in the Dirt. The Levites of the Old Law had nothing of their own; with how much greater reason is it forbidden to the Ministers of the New Law to possess Riches, and leave them to their Heirs. Jesus Christ doth not advise

〈◊〉〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth others, 〈…〉〈…〉 Gold, or Silver. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 obliged 〈◊〉〈◊〉 others to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them 〈◊〉〈◊〉, because 'tis their State and 〈…〉〈…〉 Sins, we must give them to 〈…〉〈…〉 of Life▪ I grant we may, says 〈…〉〈…〉, and cut off all Super∣•…•… We 〈…〉〈…〉 getting Riches, or e••creasing them, or be trou∣bled in keeping them. Lastly, Some Goods, which we have in this Life, must be distri∣buted 〈…〉〈…〉 not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 run to the last 〈…〉〈…〉 I have children may some say, (here begins Word••'s Third 〈…〉〈…〉 for their Salvation. But if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Affection of Parents, who leave their Children something to live on, be 〈…〉〈…〉 their ••ollateral Heirs, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Rich Men? Oh unhappy Men, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you are full of Carking 〈…〉〈…〉 when you are Dead, and do not think up∣on 〈…〉〈…〉, before God's 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Devils attend you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you Eternally, and you are thinking on the Pleasures which your Heirs will have in enjoying the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which you have gotten. I do not speak this to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christians altogether from leaving any thing on their lawful Heirs, Heirs, but to Teach them above all things to take care of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Salvation. There are some cases in which it is not only justly allowable to leave in their Heirs, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it were the greatest Injustice not to do it. As for Example, If a Man leaves his Father, or Mother, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or Wife, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Necessity, if he hath Poor Friends, he is obliged to leave them something, and so much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, if they are Dedicated to God, although we now do just the contrary, and Fathers leave none of their Children less than those they have offered to God. But why is it necessary to give to the Religious, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 say▪ How, Must they be forced to beg their Bread, because they are Religious? It true, That That they need not the things of this World, but no thanks to their Parents, that they are not in ••ant. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Hardness would reduce them to it, if they had not other helps. You will demand What g••••d would it do them to have an equal share of their Father's Estate with their 〈◊〉〈◊〉? I Answer, That it would be useful to maintain the others Religious, to impart to those that have nothing; that their Charity may make them not to have it soon, but may be more happy in having had it. Why do you reduce them to Poverty against their w••••••s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Suffer them to embrace Poverty voluntarily, to chuse it out of Devotion, without obliging them to endure it through Necessity. There are some that think it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 leave the Pro•…•… to their Religious Children: This is a kind of Impiety, and In••••••elity, says 〈◊〉〈◊〉, For besides that the propriety of their Goods belongs to their Children, this is a way found out to provide for their Children without giving any thing to God. They would have the Holy Monks Live in Riches, but Die in Poverty. In fine, 〈…〉〈…〉 much against that Abuse, which is become a kind of Law among us. To leave nothing to the Religious, or only an Allowance for Life; he spends the rest of this Book, and all the Fourth in proving, That Men are obliged at their Death to leave a part of their Estate to be employed in ••ions Uses. Salvian cites one place of these Books in his Fourth Book Of the Government of God, which shews, that they were written before the Year 440. He also gives the reason of the Title of these Books in his Letter writ∣ten to Sal•…•…, where he says, 1. That he Dedicated them to the whole Church, because the disorders were general. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 That he concealed his own Name for Two Reasons, for fear it should be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 occasion of Pride, and upon the account of that small Authority, and Esteem he had, least they should hurt the important Truths contain'd in his Work. 3. That he chose the Name of Ti•…•…, according to S. Luke's Example, who ••ook Theophilus's, because that Name may agree to all Men that Honour God, and that being fearful of telling a Lye, he assumed a Name which agreed to the design of the Work composed for the Honour of God. But that it was needless curiosity to search after the Author, because he was not willing to be known. There are besides these Eight Letters of Salvian's, which are all written with a great deal of Elegancy. The best of them is that which is written to his Wife's a 1.221 Father and b 1.222 Mother, in his own, their c 1.223 Daughter's, and their d 1.224 little Daughter's Name, to appease the Anger in which their Mother and Father were, because they were retreated, and had Consecrated themselves to God.

It is not necessary to commend the Beauty and Elegancy of Salvian's Stile; it is sufficiently known to all that have but a little smattering of Learning. It would be hard to find a more near, beautiful, smooth, and pleasant Discourse. He is not so diffusive, but he is more di∣verting, and full of Instructions, than Lactantius; and he proves what he asserts by Texts of Scripture, which he alledges much to his purpose, and which come up very well to the Sub∣ject in hand. He makes very Natural Descriptions of Vices to create Hatred of them, he produces very plausible Reasons to induce Men to forsake them, and he confutes solidly and ingeniously the idle pre•…•…es which they made use of to defend their pursuit of the World. His Morals are strict without being unreasonable, but he lays down some Principles a little too largely, and which he cannot maintain in their strict sence, but it is the common fault of

〈◊〉〈◊〉 that are too rigid Censors of Manners, and it is hard to inveigh strongly against a Vice, a••d not fall into the contrary Extream.

There are Three Books of Questions, [Printed with Salvian at Basil, and elsewhere,] to re∣concile some places of the Old and New Testament together. Some attribute them to Salvian, but 'tis certain they are not his. [They are commonly imputed to Julian Bishop of To∣ledo].

The Works of Salvian have been Printed in the former Age in several places, as at Basil in 1530, [with the Notes of Alexander Brassicanus in Folio] at Paris in 1570, and in 1575, at Rome by Manutius in 1564. M. Pitthaeus reviewed them by several Manuscripts, and put out a new Edition at Paris in 1580. After him Ritterhusius caused them to be reprinted in 1611, [at Altorf in 2 Vol. Octavo] to which he added long Comments. Pitthaeus's Edition was again Printed in 1645, [and in 1640 at Paris]. Lastly, M. Baluzius having reviewed them by Four Manuscripts, published them with short Notes. This Edition which is the last, and the best, was Printed for Muguet in 1663, [at Paris, where it was reprinted again in 1669, Octavo. Besides these Editions they were Printed at Norimberg in 1623, at Rouan in 1627, Twelves, with Brassicanus his Notes. At Oxford in 1633, with the aforesaid Notes].

ARNOBIUS, junior.

THE Author of the Commentary upon the Psalms Dedicated to Laurentius, or rather Le∣ontius, and Rusticus, commonly bears the Name of Arnobius. It is hard to say, Whe∣ther * 1.225 it be the true Name of this Author, or some feigned Name; but however that be, we must not confound him with Arnobins the Apologist for Religion, this last having lived after the Heresie of Pelagius, in the time when there were such hot Disputes about Predestination. He took part, and ranked himself on the side of the Priests of Marseille, against the Scho∣lars of S. Austin, which makes me think he was a French Man brought up in the Monastery of Lerins. The Bishops to whom he writes are without doubt Leontius of Arles, and Rusti∣cus Bishop of Forum-Julii. It appears by what he says upon the 105th Psalm, that he was in the Priesthood.

His Commentary is extreamly short. He applies himself to the Allegorical Sence, and re∣ferrs all the Text of the Psalms to Jesus Christ, and his Church. He doth it with a great deal of Wit and Elegancy, and mixes now and then some Moral Observations, but his chief design is to find in the Psalms the whole Oeconomy of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and par∣ticularly the benefits of the Redemption. He seems to favour the Error of Pelagius in his Commentary upon the 50th Psalm, where he says, That Man is born Subject to the Sentence passed upon Adam, without partaking in his Sin. Qui nascitur, sententiam Adae habet, peccatum vero non habet. Nevertheless he acknowledges, That the Nature of Man is decayed thro' the Sin of the First-Man. He owns the effects of Original-Sin, and the Necessity of Redemp∣tion; and he observes all along, that we can do nothing without the Divine help; That it is he that delivers us from our Irregular Motions, who instills into us the knowledge of Good, who makes us love it and practise it. He goes yet further, and will not have Man attribute any Good-Work to himself, nor presume upon the strength of his Free-Will, because the Will, says he, upon Psalm 117, may be over-powered, but God cannot. The Freedom of Man cannot say, I have Conquered my Enemies, for no Man ever overcame either his visible, or invisible Enemies, without the help of God. To God then we owe our Victory, his Al∣mighty Arm works that little Goodness that we have in us, he hath the power of Life and Death, he makes us sing his Divine Praises. But altho' he extolls the strength of Grace so much, yet he opposes those that Teach Predestination, or as he says on Psalm 109, those that have Predestined some to Good, and others to Evil, and deny Free-Will. He maintains, That Grace doth not expel Freedom, but that we may request, pray, knock at the Gate for it, and God will not deny his Grace to those Persons who do so. That there is an Universal preventing Grace, which Jesus Christ hath diffused upon all Men, which goes before all their desires, and by the help of which they have recourse to God for his Special Graces. That their Freedom is not utterly destroyed, but yet they must impute all the Good they do to God. God commands nothing impossible. Men never are guilty of Sin, but when they have no Will to do that thing which they are able to do. God never rejects them who have re∣course to him. Read the Commentaries upon Psalm 37, 77, 91, 109, 117, 118, and 146. In his Commentary upon the 138th Psalm he opposes the Novatian Heresie. In the 139th Psalm he notes, That Excommunication is to terrifie, not destroy, because it excludes from Eternal Life. He adds, That Hereticks can have no place in the Kingdom of Heaven. because they corrupt the Word of God; and he says further, That Bishops who have no

care to feed their Flock with this Divine Word, shall be punished in the same manner. He speaks of Guardian-Angels in his Commentary upon the 37th Psalm, and asserts. That they with-draw themselves from Men, when they run into Sin.

This Commentary is not the Stile of the Ancient Arnobius, nor written with so much clear∣ness as it might, but yet the Stile is not bad. [It hath been Printed alone at Basil in 1522, and by Erasmus at Cologne in 1532, Octavo, and more correct at Paris in 1639. 'Tis extant also in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.]

We have also under the Name of Arnobius a Dialogue about the Trinity and Incarnation, [first Printed by Feuardentius, at the end of his Edition of S. Irenaeus, at Cologne in 1596, and since with all Irenaeus's Works. 'Tis also in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.] and some Notes upon the Gospel; [Printed at Basil in 1543, Octavo, and reviewed and amended by Schottus, at Paris in 1639.]

HONORATUS, Bishop of Marseille.

GENNADIUS says, That this Bishop was Eloquent, and that he had an excellent fa∣culty of making Sermons Extempore, for being filled with the Fear of God, and well skilled in Ecclesiastical Matters, as soon as he opened his Mouth Divine Instructions flowed * 1.226 from it, as from a Magazine. He composed several Homilies, in which he set himself espe∣cially to Explain the Mysteries of Religion, and Confute the Hereticks. The People and Clergy came in throngs to hear him, and the other Bishops desired him often to come and Preach in their Churches. Pope Gelasius acknowledges under his Hand, That he was sound in the Faith, and shews the great Esteem he had for him in a Letter. He composed the Lives of the Saints for the Edification of the Faithful, and chiefly insists upon the Life of S. Hilary, to whom he was obliged for his Education. He often joined devoutly with his People in the Litanies, to implore the Mercy of God. This is what Gennadius, or some other Author of the same time, says, in Commendation of Honoratus. I say, Gennadius, or some other Author, because this Clause is not to be found in some Manuscripts of Gennadi∣us's Treatise of Ecclesiastical Authors, and it seems not to be his Stile. But however that be, it is not to be doubted, but that it was written by some Author of that time.

We have the Life of S. Hilary Bishop of Arles, but it is questionable, whether it be Hono∣ratus's, because in the Manuscript of the Church of Arles, where it is found, 'tis attributed to Reverentius, Hilary's Successor. There never was a Bishop of Arles of that Name, but per∣haps the Name of Ravennius who was immediate Successor to Hilary, was intended. Now it is evident, that this Life cannot be his, since the Author says, that Ravennius was sent to Rome by S. Hilary, and that afterward he was his Successor. It is certain, that it was written by one of S. Hilary's Scholars, and why should it not be Honoratus, since it is manifest he wrote one, and this is very worthy of him? It is excellently well written, and full of very useful Maxims. There is nothing in it Mean, or Childish, and the Marks of Truth and Sin∣cerity are visible quite thro' it, it gives us a full Idea of S. Hilary's Person, and lays before us a Platform of a Life becoming a Bishop. The Author proves what he says by the Testi∣monies of those who had seen and written to S. Hilary. He recites their very words, as also S. Hilary's. Lastly, It may be said, That it must needs be he that wrote the Lives of the Saints. I say no more here, because I have made an Extract of it, when I spoke of Hilary Bishop of Arles. [It is Extant in Surius on May the 5th.]

SALONIUS and VERANUS.

SALONIUS and VERANUS, the Sons of S. Eucherius, were brought up in the Monastry of Lerins, under the Government of Honoratus, and Hilary, and instructed after∣ward * 1.227 by Vincentius, and Salvian. They were Bishops in France, but it is not well known of what City a 1.228, but it is very probable, that they were Bishops in the Province of the Alps, bordering upon the Mediterranean Sea, of which Ambrun was the Metropolis. They wrote with Ceretius a Letter to S. Leo, to thank him for sending them a Copy of his Letter written to Flavian. Their Letter is found among S. Leo's Letters. Veranus wrote also to this Pope in defence of the Rights of Ingenuus Arch-Bishop of * 1.229 Ambrun, and received an An∣swer from Hilary, S. Leo's Successor. Salonius was present at the Council of Orange held in 441, and Veranus was Commissioned by Pope Hilary to put S. Leo's Orders in execution, touching the Uniting the Castle of Nyssa to the Church of Cemele. We have under the Name of Salonius an Explication of the Proverbs of Solomon in the form of a Dialogue be∣tween himself and his Brother Veranus, which clears by Question and Answer the Text of this Book of Solomon. He hath also a Mystical Exposition [of the Book of Ecclesiastes] composed in the same way. The Stile of these Dialogues is plain, and neat, the greatest part of his Explications are inclining to Morality. [They are extant in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.]

PAULINUS PETROCORIUS.

THERE are many Paulinus's in this Age, for besides the Bishop of Nola, and Paulinus Scholar of S. Ambrose, Bishop of Biterrae, who wrote a Letter, of which Idacius makes * 1.230 mention in his Chronicon upon the Year 420, there was also Paulinus Nephew of Ausonius, the Author of a Poem of Thanksgiving to Ausonius, and this Paulinus who hath made Six Books in Verse concerning the Life and Miracles of S. Martin. In the Manuscripts he is called Petricordius, i. e. of Perigueux (as it is now called). F. Sirmondus affirms, that it is Petrocorius, and that Petrocorium signifies Besancon, and so thinks that this Paulinus is that Rhetorician who dwelt in that City, of whom Sidonius Apollinaris speaks, L. 28. Ep. 11. But

this Conjecture is not well supported. This Poem hath nothing Elegant nor Sublime in it, the Terms are Harsh and Barbarous, and the Verses are pitiful, and Story very troublesome. [It is Published by Juret at Paris in 1585, under the Name of Paulinus of Nola, and in the Biblioth. Patr. Printed at Paris. In his own Name it hath been Printed at Leipsick in 1686, Octavo, and Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 6.]

MUSAEUS.

MUSAEUS, or MUSSAEUS, a Priest of Marseille, was a Man mighty in the Holy Scriptures, who by continual Exercise had accustomed himself to find out unusal sences * 1.231 of it, and make very pertinent Applications. His Stile was very Polite. At the desire of Venerius Bishop of Milan, he selected out of Scripture [They are extant in Bern. Guido] pro∣per Lessons for all the Festivals of the Year, with Responses and Psalms suitable to the time, and to the Lessons. The Necessity of this Work is generally acknowledged by all Readers, because when they make use of it, it prevents confusion and delay, and is of great use in in∣structing the People, and rendering the Solemnization of the Feast more Venerable. He hath also composed and directed to Eustathius that Holy Man's Successor, a great and Elegant Treatise of the Sacraments, divided for conveniency sake into many parts, according to the different Offices, Times, Lessons, and Psalms, which are sung in the Church, but which all along inclines us to Pray to God, and thank him for his Benefits.

This Work shews him to be a Man of great Sence, and very Polite Eloquence. 'Tis said also that he Preached some Homilies, [they are lost, Dr. Cave,] which are, as I understand, in some Pious Men's Hands, but I have never read them. He Died in the Reign of the Empe∣rors Leo and Majorian, i. e. about the Year 460. This is what Gennadius tells us of this Author in Ch. 79. of his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers.

VINCENTIUS.

VINCENTIUS, a Priest of France, but distinct from Vincent the Monk of Lerins, was very well versed in Scripture, and had acquired an Ability of Reading and Writing in a * 1.232 very Elegant Stile. He hath written a Commentary upon the Psalms; I have heard him read to Cannatus something of this Work in the presence of that Servant of God, and he promised us, that if God gave him Strength and Health, he would do the like upon the whole Psalter. We have taken all this from Gennadius. He places this Author immediately after Musaeus.

SYRUS.

SYRUS, or Cyrus of Alexandria, a Physician by Profession. Of a Philosopher he became a Monk. He knew exactly how to Write well. He composed a Treatise against Nestori∣us, * 1.233 and confuted him with a great deal of Strength and Eloquence, but he was carried too far against him, and opposed him rather by Syllogisms, than by Testimonies of Scripture. He also declined to the Judgment of Timotheus, and thought himself not obliged to follow the Council of Chalcedon's definition, which ties to believe, that there are Two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Incarnation. He flourished under the Emperor Leo. This is taken out of Gennadius, Ch. 81. for we have not the Treatise it self.

SAMUEL.

THE Relation which Gennadius gives of this Author, is this: He saith, That Samuel▪ a Priest of the Church of Edessa, wrote in the Syrian Tongue several Books against the * 1.234 Enemies of the Church, principally against the Nestorians, Eutychians, and Tim••theans, all different Hereticks▪ which he hath often described as a Beast with Three Heads, and con∣futes them by the Doctrine of the Church, and the Authority of Holy Scripture, demon∣strating against the Nestorians, That the Word is God-Man, and not a mere Man born of the Virgin; against the Eutychians, That God took real Flesh in the Womb of the Virgin, that he had it not from Heaven, and that his Flesh was not formed out of condensed Air; and against the Timotheans; That the Word was made Flesh, but so, that he retain'd his Substance, as well as the Humanity, its Nature. He was made One Person by the Union, and by the mixture of the Two Natures. He is said to be yet at Constantinople, for it was in the begin∣ning of the Empire of Anthemius, that I heard this news of him, and his Works. Anthemi∣us began his Reign in the Year of Christ 467.

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 * 1.235 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.

PASTOR.

PASTOR the Bishop hath Composed a little Book in the form of a Creed, which contains in Sentences all that a Christian ought to believe. Among the Errors, which he condemns, * 1.236 without Naming the First Teachers of them, he accurseth the Priscillianists with their Head. It is Cum ipso Auctoris Nomine, with the very Name of the Author: I believe, it should be Praetermisso Autoris Nomine, The Author's Name being left out.

VOCONIUS.

VOconius, as Gennadius calls him, or Buconius, according to Honorius, and Trithemius, Bishop of Castellanum a City of Mauritania has Written against the Enemies of the Church, Jews, * 1.237 Arians, and other Hereticks. He hath also composed an Excellent Work upon the Sa∣craments, and other Religious Mysteries.

EUTROPIUS.

EUtropius the Priest hath written two Letters to two Sisters, very Devout Servants of J. C. who had been disinherited by their Parents, [for their Love to Religion, and Vowing a Single * 1.238 Life] in which he Comforts them for that loss. These Letters are written with a great deal of Wit and Elegancy. In them he makes use not only of Reasons, but also Testimonies of Holy Scripture to comfort them. This is what Gennadius says of this Author, whom we must be∣ware not to confound with Eutropius, who has made the Abridgment of [the Roman] History. This of whom we are speaking, was the Scholar of Saint Austin.

EVAGRIUS.

THis Evagrius, a distinct Person from Evagrius of Pontus, is by Gennadius reckoned among the Ecclesiastical Writers of the V Age. He atrributes to him a Disputation between a Jew * 1.239 named Simon, and a Christian called Theophilus, which was very well known in his time, but is now lost.

TIMOTHEUS.

TImotheus the Bishop hath written a Book of the Nativity of our Lord, according to the Flesh, * 1.240 which he believes to have happened on the Feast of Epiphany, as Gennadius informs us Chap∣ter 58.

EUSTATHIUS.

THis Eustathius hath Translated Nine of St. Basil's Homilies upon the beginning of Genesis into Latin, and Dedicated his Translation to his Sister Syncletica, who was a Deaconess. Cassiodo∣rus * 1.241 says, That his Version equals the Original in Elegancy. Sedulius commends this Syncletica in the Preface to his Book of Easter. Junilius, Cassidorus, Bede, and Sigibertus mention this Translation, which is to be found among the Latin Works of St. Basil.

THEODULUS.

THeodulus, a Priest in Caelosyria is said to have Written many Works. Gennadius tells us Chap∣ter 91. That he had never seen but one of his Books, which he Composed about the agree∣ment * 1.242 of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament against those ancient Hereticks, who observing a difference between the Commands and Ceremonies, held; That the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New. He shews, That it was by a Dispensation of Providence, that GOD had given to the Jews by Moses, a Law incumbred with Ceremonies and Judicial Statutes, and to us another by Jesus Christ, made up of Sacred Mysteries and Promises of future Good things; but for all this we must not look upon them as distinct; that it was the same Spirit that dictated them, and the same Author that established them, and that the Old Law, which brings Death, being observed in the Literal Sense, bestows Life being understood Spiritually. This Author dy'd three Years since, under the Empire of Zeno. Zeno ended in 490. Gennadius wrote in 493. There is in the Bibliothecâ Patrum, [Tom. 8.] a Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles, which bears the Name of Theodulus, but it can't be his, because it speaks of Aecumenius and Photius, who lived a long time after. It is an Abridgment of Aecumenius's Catena.

EUGENIUS.

EUgenius Bishop of Carthage and Confessor, being summoned by Hunnericus King of the Van∣dals to explain the Faith of the Church, and the true signification of the Word, Consubstan∣tial, * 1.243 made a Treatise of the Faith, approved by all the Bishops, and all the Orthodox Con∣fessors of Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia, and Corsica, in which he confirms the true Faith, not only by the Authorities of the Scripture, but also by several passages of the Fathers. This Book was presented by his Fellow Bishop, when he was in Banishment, because he had so freely confessed the Faith as a Good Pastor. He left behind him some Letters to his Flock to strengthen them in the Faith, into which they were Baptized. He also sent in Writing the disputes, which he had had with the Arian Bishop by Proxie, and conveyed them to Hunnericus by the Steward of his Houshold. He also offered a Petition in form of an Apology to that Prince, endeavouring to obtain Peace for the Christians. He is said to be yet alive, and to continue his Service to the Church, by con∣firming the Faithful. The Treatise of Eugenius to Hunnericus is found in the third Book of the Hi∣story of Victor Vitensis; [as also in Tom. 4. of the Councils, and in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.] and Gre∣gory in his second Book of his History of France recites one of his Letters written to the Church of Carthage.

CEREALIS.

CErealis, an African * 1.244 Bishop, being required by Maximinian a Bishop of the Arians in Africk, to explain and confirm the Catholick Faith by a few Texts of Holy Scripture, * 1.245 having implored the Divine Assistance, gave a Satisfactory Answer to his Demand, by propounding a clear proof of the Faith of the Church, not only in a few Texts of Scrip∣ture, as Maximinian had demanded of him, but also in a greater number, taken out of the Old and New Testament, and made one Book of them. This Writing is in the Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 8. and in the Haeresiologia, Printed at Basil in 1556.]

SERVUS DEI.

THe Bishop Servus Dei hath Written against those that say, That Jesus Christ did not see his Fa∣ther in this Life with his bodily Eyes, until after his Resurrection from the Dead and Ascen∣sion, * 1.246 when he was translated into the Glory of his Father; and that that Vision was the Reward of his Sufferings. He shews, I say, against these Opinions as well by Testimonies of Holy Scripture, as by Rational Argument; That our Lord Jesus Christ did always see the Father and Holy Spirit with his bodily Eyes, from the very time of his Conception by the Holy Ghost, and Birth of

•…•…e Virgin; and that this Priviledge was granted him upon the account of the intimate Union that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was between the Humane and Divine Nature. This is all Gennadius saith of this Author. Th•• Common Opinion of Divines is, That the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ did always enjoy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 clear Vision of God, which they call the Beatifick Vision; but they do not believe, that he saw 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with his bodily Eyes. The Vision of God is Spiritual, in which the bodily Eyes have no share. It is also Question'd, whether they may not be able to do it, thro' the infinite power of God. If 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Author believed, that Jesus Christ saw the Divine Nature with his bodily Eyes, he must be very gross in his conceptions. Saint Austin had confuted him long before, but it may be he will say, as the Schoolmen do, and understand by the Bodily Eyes, the Humane intellectual faculty in Jesus C••••ist.

IDACIUS.

IDacius of Lan••ecum in Gall••••ia, Bishop of Augusti-Lucus a 1.247 the Metropolis of the same Province, hath made a Chronicle, in which he continues St. Jeromes to his own time. It begin•• at the * 1.248 first Year of Theodos••us the Great, and ends at the Eleventh Year of the Reign of Le••, and contains the History, or rather a Chronicle of 86 Years, from the Year 381, to 467. To the Year 437 it is made up of the Writings and Histories of others, but from that time of his own ob∣servations. In this Chronicle he sets down the most considerable Events of the Empire, the Years, and Alterations of the Emperors, the Names and Years of the Popedom of the Bishop of Rome, and part•…•…larly the Eccles••astical and Profane History of his own Country. He makes use of three Epoch••'s; The first is of the Years of the World according to Eusebius; the Second is the Spanish Aera▪ which begins 37 Years before the Nativity of Christ, and the last is of the Olmpiads, which he brings lower than Socrates, who makes them to end in 440. We may see there the Years of the Em∣p••••••••s▪ This Chronicle is in a rough and barbarous stile but easie enough to be understood. Cana∣•…•…▪ and Scaliger had Printed some fragments of it, but F. Sirmondus hath Published it entire in 1619, [〈◊〉〈◊〉 at Parit] out of a MS. in the Jesuits Library of the College of Clermont, which came from 〈◊〉〈◊〉. It had been already Printed at Rome before him, since 'tis inserted in Eusebius's Chronicon.

〈◊〉〈◊〉. Sirmondus found in the same MS a very exact Computation of Years by the Consuls, which begins with the Year 269, and ends at 423. It is thought to belong to the same Idacius, not only because it is in the same MS, but because they are very like to one another in style and Chronology. F. Labbe hath also Published the same since, under the name of Idacius, but much enlarged; for they begin at the Consulship of Brutus and Collatinus, which was in the 245 Year from the builing of Ro••••, and ends in the second Consulship of Anthemius, that is to say, at the Year 468, where also 〈◊〉〈◊〉's Chronicle ends. [Both are extant in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. VII.]

VICTORIUS.

VIctorius born at Lemovicum a City of Aquitain, an exact Chronologer, made in the Year 457 at the desire of Hilary, then Arch-deacon, and after Bishop of Rome, a New Paschal * 1.249 Cycle wonderfully curious. It was for 532 Years, because according to his Calculation, at the end of that time Easter-day ought to fall upon the same day of the Month, and of the Moon, on which it happened in the Year of the Death of Jesus Christ. Bucherius the Jesuit published this Cycle in 1634, [in Fol. at Antwerp,] Corrected it in many places, and Explained it by a learned Commentary. He hath put before it a Letter of Hilary to Victorius, and a Preface of his own. This Author was the first among the Christians, who made use of the space of 19 Years for the Cycle of the Moon. * 1.250 His Cycle begins at the Year 73, which is the 28 of the Common ac∣count, and ends at the Year 559 of the same Aera inclusively. It contains 8 Columns. In the first are the names of the Coss. In the second are set down the Numbers of the Years of his Revolution. In the third are observed the Leap-Years. The fourth shews upon what day of the Week the first day of every Year falls, which is instead of the Dominical Letter, that was not yet found out. The fifth notes how old the Moon was upon the same day, this is instead of the Epact. The sixth shews, on what day Easter-day falls. The seventh discovers the Age of the Moon on that day.

The last contains the Indications. Bucherius hath added the Golden Number, and hath marked in another Table by the side of Years of the World, according to Eusebius, the Years of the Vulga•• Aera, the Cycles of the Moon and Sun, the Years of the Epocha of the Building of Rome according to Varo, the true Order of the Consulships, and the Years of the Roman Emperors. This Cycle hath been very famous. The fourth Council of Orleans held in 541, Decreed, That all Bishops should make use of it in ordering the Celebration of Easter. It is commended by Gennadius, Cassiod••rus, Gregory Bishop of Tours, S. Isidore of Sivil, and many others. We know nothing particular of the Life of the Author of it.

GENNADIUS, Patriarch of CONSTANTINOPLE.

GEnnadius was Chosen Patriarch of Constantinople in the room of Anat••lius, in the Year 458. He Nominated one Marcian, who had been heretofore a M••ntanist, to be Receiver of the * 1.251 Church of Constantinople. This was that Receiver, if we may believe The••dorus, who o••∣dered, That the Clergy of every Church, should distribute among themselves the Oblati∣ons made to their Church, whereas before they belonged to the Patriarchal Church. But it was not only the Receiver of Gennadius, that made this Reformation in the Church of C••••stantinople. This Patriarch also laboured much in it. He held in 459 a Synod, in which he revived the Decrees made against Simoniacal Persons. He made also a Law, that no Priest should be ordained who could not say the Psalter by Heart. 'Twas in his time, that Studius built the Monastery of the * 1.252 Acaemetae at Constantinople, and Dedicated it to S. John [Baptist.] Gennadius dyed in the Year 471. He had been advertised of his Death sometime before by a Ghost, which appeared to him, while he was at Pray∣ers in the Church by Night, and foretold him the great trouble that should befall his Church after his Death. Gennadius, a Priest of Marseille reckons this Patriarch among the Ecclesiastical Writers, and says, that he had an Elegant Style, and a brisk Wit, that he was grown very Learned by R••••d∣ing the Ancients, that he had composed a Literal Comment upon Daniel, and that he had made some Homilies. We have none of his Works, but there are preserved only two fragments of this Ge••••a∣dius, the one recited by Facundus, Lib. 2. c. 4. and the other by Leontius in his Treatise of Common places about the Original of Souls. We do not know out of what Book the first is taken. It is a Declamation against St. Cyril, which seems to be taken out of a Letter written against St. Cyrils 12 Chapters.

Unhappy I, saith he, who live in a time, when the Church is afflicted with so great Evils? Alas! Alas! for from whence doth it proceed but from hence in the time, wherein we ar•…•… How much have I heard of the Blasphemies of Cyril of Aegypt? Wo to the Scourge of Alexandria, This is the Second. Can we sufficiently lament it, that he hath been corrupted himself, and that he hath corrupted others? He hath cast forth all manner of Blasphemies against the Holy Fathers, the Apostles, yea against Jesus Christ himself. He destroys the Humane Nature, that the Word a•…•…∣med from us, and for us, and would make that Nature subject to Sufferings that is impossible.

Facundus also recites the beginning of the Confutation of the first of St. Cyril's Chapters, wherein he shews as much passion. Gennadius must needs write this when he was very Young, in the time of those hot contests between Saint Cyril, and the Oriental Bishops.

The second Passage of Gennadius is taken out of the Second Book to Parthenius; it is cited by Le∣ontius in his Common-places about the Original of the Soul. We do not here speak of the Letter a∣gainst Simoniacal Persons, because it is a Synodical Letter, which shall be found among the Acts of the Councils.

ANTIPATER of Bostra.

THis Author flourished about the end of the Fifth Age. He wrote a * 1.253 Confutation of Eusebius's Apology for Origen, divided into several discourses. A Fragment of it is cited in the Acts of the second Council of Nice, Act. V. Tom. 7. Of the Councils, p. 367, where he owns, that Eusebius was very skilful to write History; but maintains, that he was not expert in hand∣ling Doctrinals. He blames him for defending the Opinion of Origen, concerning the Prae-existence of Souls, and the Subjection of the Son of God in respect of his Father, Leo Allatius mentions a Sermon of this Author's upon Saint John Baptist. Diatriba. de Simeon. p. 89.

HILARUS or HILARIUS, Bishop of Rome.

HIlarus, or rather Hilarius a 1.254 an Arch-Deacon of the Church of Rome in the Popedom of St. Leo, was one of the Legats, which this Pope sent into the East about the affair of Euty∣ches. * 1.255 He was present in that quality in the Sham-Council of Ephesus, and because he would not consent to the Condemnation of Flavian, he made his escape into Italy. It was at this time, that he wrote his first Letter to Pulcheria the Empress, in which he lets her know, that the Pope, and all the Western Bishops disallowed all that was done in the Council. He remained in the Office of an Arch-Deacon till the Death of St. Leo. We have a Letter of his Written in 457 to Victorius, in which he desires the resolution of such difficulties, as arose about Easter-day. This Let∣ter, as we have said, is at the beginning of Victorius's Paschal Cycle.

Arch-Deacons having had a share in the Government of the Church, it hath been thought, that no fitter Person could be chosen to succeed the Bishop than they: Upon which account it is, that they have ordinarily been pitched upon. Hence it was, that after the Death of Saint Leo, Hilarius was chosen into his place. He was ordained November 17. in the year 461. We have a Letter of his to Leontius Bishop of Arles, dated Jan. 25. Anno. 462, wherein he tells him of his Election, and desires him to let all the Bishops of his Countrey know it, that they may joyn their Prayers with his for the good of the Universal Church. This Letter is unfitly put in the 5th place, since it is dated before any that Hilary wrote, when he was Bishop. He therein put him in mind, that those who are observers of Tradition, are sensible what respect hath been given all along to St. Peter and his See. Leontius, to whom this Letter is written, before he received it, had written a Letter to Pope Hilary, which he sent by Pappolus, seeking the Popes favour, that he might procure his own Settlement in all those Rights, which St. Leo had attempted to take from the Bishop of Arles. Hilary returned him a very obliging Answer, telling him, That he had w•…•…ten to him already, doing thereby as the Ordi∣nary Custom, and Mutual Charity required of him. ••e sent him likewise a Copy of the preceding Letter, to shew him, that he had not been defective 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is Duty. He tells him, That he hoped to have a frequent Correspondence with him by Letter, and promises, that he will observe the Canons, and use his utmost power to cause others to observe them, and to procure the Peace and Agreement of all the Bishops. This Letter, which is the Fifth, is without date, but it seems to be written soon after the former.

Hilarius soon gave proof of his Care and Vigilance. A Person named Hermes, a Man Unworthy of the Priesthood, had procured himself to be ordained Bishop of Biterrae, and being thrust out of that Bishoprick, he Usurped the Diocess of Narbon. The Pope having intelligence of it, wrote first to Leontius to inform him of that affair; this appeareth by the 7th Letter, dated Nov. 3. 462. He soon after propounded it to a Council of Rome held in November in 462, at which Faustus, and Auxa∣nius two French Bishops were present. It was resolved in this Council, that the Usurpation of Her∣mes was disorderly, and therefore they deprived him of the Right of Ordaining Bishops of his Pro∣vince, which was granted to the Bishop of Uzetia during his Life. Pope Hilary sent this Decree to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lyons, the two Provinces of Narbon, and the Province of the Sea-Alps, and at the same time exhorts them by the eighth Letter to hold Councils every Year, which should be Summoned by Leontius Bishop of Arles. He adds also in that Letter, That no Bi∣shop nor Clergyman, may go out of his Province without having the Letters of his Metropolitan; and in case he will not grant him them thro' hatred or enmity to him, He may address himself to the Bishop of Arles, who shall not give any leave but upon good reasons. He declares further, that upon the complaint of the Bishop of Arles, who had Complain'd that his Predecessor had left the Churches subject to him to others, he had communicated that business to them, that they might examine it. In fine, he admonishes them not to suffer the goods of the Church to be alienated, if the alienation be not allowed of by a Council. This Letter bears date December 3. 462.

The Rights which Pope Hilary was about to restore, in favour of the Bishop of Arles, seemed to receive some Check by the attempt of Marcian Bishop of Vienna. There had been for a long time a Con∣test between the Bishops of Vienna, and Arles, about their Prerogative. The Popes had sometimes fa∣voured the one, and sometimes the other. Saint Leo, who had at first very much opposed the preten∣sions of the Bishop of Arles, upon the account of his displeasure, which he had against Hilary, was af∣terward reconciled to him; and had ordered by his 51 Letters, that the Arch-bishop of Vienna should content himself with having the Rights of a Metropolitan over four Cities, viz. Valentia, Tarantesta, Geneva, and Gratianople, and that all the other Cities should be subject to the Metropolis of Arles. Saint Mamertus, whether it was that he would not obey this order, or that he thought that Leontius would not take it ill, ordained a Bishop of Dia. Pope Hilary having heard of it by an Officer, wrote

immediately to Leontius, blaming him for not giving him notice of this action, and commanded him to have the matter examined in a Synod; and give him a relation of it in a Synodal Letter. The Letter of Hilary to Leontius is the Ninth, and is dated Octob. 10. Anno. 463.

Leontius, and the Bishops assembled in his Synod, returned answer to Pope Hilary, that it was true, that Mamertus had ordained a Bishop of Dia. But it appears by the Popes answer, that they spoke of that action with much moderation, not shewing themselves troubled at all at it. The Pope did not take it in the same manner, but looked upon it as an Unpardonable crime. He accused St. Mamer∣tus of Pride, Presumption, Treachery, and a Sinful attempt, and threatned to deprive him of all his Privileges, and out him of all the Right he had over his four Churches, if he did maintain what he had done as Lawful, and persisted to do the like for the future. And as to the Bishop of D••••, whom he had ordained, he enjoyned him to accept the Confirmation of Leontius Bishop of Arles, who ought regularly to have ordained him, and gave Ver••••us a Commission to deliver these Orders forthwith, and see that they be put in Exec••tion. All this is contained in the fourth Letter of this Pope sent to Leon∣tius, and the other Bishops of his Synod, which is dated Feb. 24. Anno. 464. He wrote also a little time after another Letter to the Bishop of the Provinces of Vienna, Lyon, Narbonne, the Paenine-Alpes, in which he repeats and confirms, what he had said in his former Letter, for the upholding the Rights of the Church of Arles, and orders the Bishops of those Provinces to come to the Synods, to which they shall be called by the Bishop of Arles.

In the Year 465, the Church of Rome had the Honour to be consulted by Ascanius Bishop of Tarra∣co, and other Bishops of his Province, who wrote two Letters to Hilary, about two important Matters which fell out in their Countrys. They speak in both of them with a great deal of Respect and Sub∣mission to the Holy See. In the first, having told him, that they resorted to him as to the Successor of St. Peter, whose Primacy ought to be feared, and loved by all Christians. Cujus Vicarii principa∣tus, sicut emine••, est ••etue••dus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 omnibus & ••mandus; to receive found Answers from a place, where things are not judged of erno••••ou••ly, or with prejudice; but after a truly Episcopal deliberation, I say, after this compliment, they tell him, that Silv••••••s Bishop of Calaguris, which is a City of their Pro∣vince farthest dist••nt from the Metropolis, ••••d ventured to ordain a Bishop in a certain City against the Consent of the People, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 take a Pri••st of another Bishop, and make him Bishop against his Will. That the Bishop of Casar••••gusta had opposed these his undertakings, and had caused the Neigh∣bouring Bishops to separate from him, but that had not reduced him, he continued in his Obstinacy, and Schism. Whereupon they desire the Pope to Command them, what he thought fit to be done by them upon this occasion, that being assisted by his Authority and Counsel, they might know how they ought to deal with the Bishop who ordained, and the Bishop who was ordained. The 2d Letter from the same Bishop is about another business; it begins also with a Compliment to the Pope, and goes on with a Request, which these Bishops made to him to confirm the Choice, which they had made of Bishop Irenaeus, to fill up the See of Barcino, which was vacant by the death of Nundinarius. They shew him that they followed the judgment of his Predecessor in so doing, who had named him for his Successor, and had also the approbation of the People and Clergy, and that they had considered the good of that Church. They added, that they had complained to him sometime since, of the attempts of Syl∣vanus, but had received no Answer, and therefore desired him to give them an Answer of all together.

These Letters being delivered to him at the time, when he had assembled the Bishops at Rome for the Anniversary Solemnity of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Exaltation, he read them in a full Counsel, and the Bishops disco∣vered by their Acclamation and Consent, that they condemned the actions of Sylvamis, and did not approve of the Ordination of Irenaeus, because it was performed contrary to the Rules of the Church. 1. Because it was never allowed any Bishop to choose his Successor. 2. Because Irenaeus being Bishop of another Church, could not be Translated to Barcino. This being decreed after this manner, the Pope wrote two Letters, one to Ascanius, and the Bishop of the Province of Tarrraco, and the other parti∣cularly to Ascanius; in which he declares, pursuent to the Judgment of his Colleagues, and the deter∣mination of the Canons, that Sylvanus had offended in celebrating Ordinations without the Authority and consent of the Bishop of Tarraco h's Metropolitan; that Irenaeus ought to relinquish the Church of Barcino, and that Ascanius ought to ordain some other Person, every way fitly qualified for that See; That as to those Bishops th••t had been ordained without his Consent, he might let them alone, if they have not been twice Married, or have not Married a Widow; That he should take special Care, that there be not two Bishops in one and the same Church; That he ought not to ordain any ignorant or lame Person, no more than those that have done Penance; That he ought not to hearken so much to the Prayers of the People, as to depart from the Will of God, or the Laws of the Church to please them. Lastly, he subjoyns that if Irenaeus will not quit the See of Barcino, he deserves to be wholly deprived of the Episcopal Dignity. This Council was held in the Month of November, Anno. 465, and the Popes Letters are Written at the end of December in the same Year.

Ingenuus Bishop of * 1.256 Ebre••••umim, who was present at this Council of Rome, reminded Pope Hilary, that what he had ordained at the Request of Auxanius in the Council held Anno. 462. and confirmed in another in 464, was prejudicial to the Metropolitical Right, which he claimed in the Province of the Sea-Alpes. The Pope respecting this his Remonstrance, wrote to Leontius, Veranus, and Victurus, French Bishops to regulate this matter according to the Laws of the Church, and the Constitutions of his Predecessor, not having regard to those Declarations, which have been obtained of him fraudu∣lently, when they are found opposite to the Holy Canons and Decrees of his Predecessors. Wherefore he confirmed the Metropolitical Right of the Bishop of Ebredunum, and Ordained, that what had been Decreed by St. Leo touching the Bishopricks of Cemele and Nice, should be exactly observed. So that it was the Ambition of the Bishops that gave the Popes an Opportunity of Greatning their own Au∣thority

every day, and making them subject to him, by favouring the Pretensions sometimes of the one, and sometimes of the other. The Style of Pope Hilary is not so florid as St. Leo's, but it is Ele∣gant, and easie to be understood. He was very knowing in the Laws and Discipline of the Church, and enlarged his Authority to make them observed. As we have not observed the Common Order of his Letters, but placed them according to time, it is convenient to compare Ours, with the Ancient, as in this Table.

I. The Letter to the Empress Pulcheria, Written Anno. 451. In the Acts of the Council of Chalce∣•…•…,	Part 1. Chap. 24.
II. The Letter to Victorius, Written Anno. 456. At the beginning of Victorius's Paschal Cycle.	The Ancient Figures.
III. The Letter to Leontius Bishop of Arles, Written Jan. 25. Anno. 462	V.
IV. Another Letter to the same Person, Written a little after.	VI.
V. A Third Letter to the same Person about the affair of Hermes, Written Nov. 3. Anno. 462.	VII.
VI. A Letter to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lyon, both Narbonns, and the Paenine-Alpes upon the same Subject, Decem. 3. 462.	VIII.
VII. A Fourth Letter to Leontius about the business of St. Mamertus, Oct. 10. 463.	IX.
VIII. A Letter to the Bishops Victurius, Ingenuus, Idatius, &c. about the same business, February 24. 464.	XI.
IX. A Letter to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lyon, both Narbonns, and Alps, upon the same Subject, Written sometime after the former.	X.
X. A Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Tarraco, about the Ordination of Irenaeus, dated January 3. 465,	II.
XI. A Letter to Ascanius Bishop of Tarraco, upon the same Subject, Written at the same time.	III.
XII. A Letter to Leontius, Veranus, and Victurus, about the business of Ingenuus Bishop of Ebredunum, Written in the same year.	IV.

SIMPLICIUS, Bishop of Rome.

SImplicius was chosen Pope in September, Anno. 467, and governed the Church of Rome 15 Years and some Months. He was very full of business all the time of his Popedom; the Church, * 1.257 and Empire having been subject to great Revolutions; for on the one hand the Western Em∣pire miserably Harassed, ended in the Person of Augustulus, and Odoacer an Arian Prince, King of the Heruli, possessed himself of that Empire. On the other hand Zeno the Eastern Emperor, was first dethroned by Basiliscus, who declared himself against the Council of Chalcedon; and Zeno be∣ing restored always privately favoured the Eutychians, and stirred up great troubles in the Church upon that Account. Nor were other Kingdoms better governed, the Goths, who were Arians, had made themselves Masters of Spain. Gensericus also, an Arian, King of the Vandals, exercised his Ty∣ranny over the People, and against the Church of Africk. The Churches of Antioch and Alexandria, were become a Prey to the Ambitions. Lastly, The Bishops of Constantinople and Rome, began to dis∣agree. But notwithstanding all these Troubles and Confusions, Simplicius did vigorously maintain the discipline of the Church in all places, and upheld his own Rights with Courage. His Letters are an Authentick proof of it.

The first is directed to Zeno Bishop of Sevil in Spain. He gives him the Title of Vicar of the Holy See, that he might have the greater Authority to hinder, that the Apostolick Laws and Decrees of the Holy Fathers be not any ways violated.

The Second is directed to John Bishop of Ravenna. He closely reproves this Bishop, because he had made one Named Gregory Bishop of a Church without his consent, and by force. He orders, That he shall be Bishop of Modena, and not be subject to the Bishop of Ravenna; and that if he had any Business, he should bring it directly to the Holy See. He desires the grant of the possession of the Inheritance of a certain Sum in the Bishoprick of Bononia, during his Life, upon Condition, that the Property of it shall remain to the Church of Ravenna. He threatens John, to oblige him to the Exe∣cution of his Orders; he tells him, that he deserved to lose the Privilege he hath abused, and that he will handle him with great Severity, if he doth not Obey what he hath Commanded. Lastly, He reminds him, that if he shall dare to do the like hereafter, and Ordain either Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon against their Will, he will deprive him of the right of Ordaining in the Province of Ravenna, and Aemilia. This Letter is dated June 29. Anno. 482.

Simplicius had already used Gaudentius Bishop of Assisium very severely, because he had celebrated Ordinations contrary to the Rules, and entirely deprived him of the right of Ordaining; and had gi∣ven the power of Ordaining in the Church of that Bishop to one of his Colleagues, called Severus. He also took from him the Administration of the Revenues, because he had made a bad use of them, leaving him no more than a fourth part, and expending the other three in Building, nourishing the Poor and Strangers, and for the maintenance of the Clergy, and ordering him to restore the three parts, which he had received during the three years past, and to oblige them to whom he had given the Church goods, to quit them. The Letter which contains this Decree is dated Novem. 29. in 475. It is directed to Florentius, Aequitius, and Severus, and placed the third among Simplicius's Letters.

The fourth sent to the Emperor Zeno, dated Jan. 10. 476. is Written against Timotheus Ael••••us, who having permission to go from the place of his Exile, after he had endeavour'd to thrust himself again into the See of Alexandria, came to Constantinople, where he was very active to establish his Do∣ctrine, gathered him a party, and celebrated the Holy Mystery also clandestinely. Simplicius ex∣horts the Emperor Zeno not to suffer this Disorder, and to imitate the zeal of his Predecessors Mar∣cian and Leo, to maintain the Faith of the Incarnation, contained in the Letters of St. Leo, which had been approved by the Council of Chalcedon, to reject all such errors as have been condemned, to hin∣der that they be not revived, and certain Truths be not brought into dispute, to take care that an Orthodox Person be ordained Bishop of Alexandria, and Timotheus the Ring-leader of the Hereticks be banished from Constantinople.

At the same time he wrote a Letter, to Acacius, which is his Fifth, in which he congratulates him, that he did not suffer Timotheus Aelurus to be received into Communion at Constantinople, and desires him to oppose the Proposal of calling a New Council, because a Council ought not to be assembled, but only when some new Error springs up, and it is something difficult to find out the Truth. But this is not the Present Case, since the Question hath been judged, and determined clearly in the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, which hath been approved by all the World. Simplicius sent a Copy of this Letter to the Emperor, with a Copy of St. Leo's Letter to Flavian.

He repeats the same Admonitions in his sixth Letter to Acacius, and in another Letter directed to the same Bishop, which hath been published by Holstenius. It is dated the same time. In it he particu∣larly advises Acacius to request the Emperor to grant his Edict for the Banishment of those who shall be ordained by Timotheus, and implore him to include Peter and Paul in it, of whom one was Banish∣ed to Ephesus, the other to Antioch; as also Anthony, one of the Principals of the Party, and John who was ordained Bishop of Apimea.

He commends in the 7th Letter the Courage of the Clergy and Monks of Constantinople, who would not receive Timotheus, and shews them that they ought not to hearken to him, since he hath been several times condemned. All these Letters bear the same Date.

The Emperor Zeno was immediately put to flight by Basiliscus, who invaded his Throne. He de∣clared himself openly for Timotheus, but his Kingdom was not of long duration. Zeno was re-esta∣blished within ten Months after. As soon as Simplicius heard of it, he testified to him the Joy he had for his Restauration, and exhorts him to maintain the Faith of his Predecessors, and the Doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon, and to depose Timotheus Aelurus from the See of Alexandria; and settle in it again a Lawful and an Orthodox Bishop. This Letter bears date Oct. 8. 477.

Zeno being moved by his admonitions went about to expell Timotheus, but his Death prevented, that this Usurper did not suffer the punishment which he deserved. He poisoned hsmself, if we believe Liberatus. After his Death, Petrus Mongus endeavoured to make himself Bishop of that See: But Ti∣motheus Salophaciolus an Orthodox Bishop was settled in it. This Acacius Bishop of Constantinople in∣forms Simplicius of by the Letter which goes before Letter 9. of this Pope.

In this Simplicius shews how much he rejoyced at the establishment of Timotheus, and prays him to take care to carry himself unblamably, because he had taken Notice of some failings in him, when he was obliged to rehearse the Name of Dioscorus at the Altar. This Letter is dated March 13. 478.

He wrote also the same time, the 10 Letter to the Emperor Zeno, in which he thanks him for set∣tling Timotheus, and prays him to eject entirely P. Mongus.

In the next Letter to Acacius, he tells him, that Timotheus had excused himself for reciting the Name of Dioscorus at the Altar, and that he was satisfied by him as to that particular.

In the 12th, He also desires the Emperor Zeno to defend Timotheus; and Banish Petrus Mongus, and in the thirteenth Letter he Commands Acacius to contribute his Assistance in it. These Letters are dated Oct. 478.

The Church of Antioch was in no less disturbances, than that of Alexandria. Petrus Sirnamed Fullo, having slain Stephen, who was the Lawful Bishop, got possession of it by force. The Emperor Zeno did not let this Crime go unpunished, but made those seditious Persons suffer the Punishment they deserved, and Banished Petrus Fullo. But because the Spirits of the People were extreamly heated, he thought it would be hard to get a Bishop Ordained quietly in the City of Antioch; he resolved to have the Ordination performed at Constantinople by Acacius. Pope Simplicius believed, as indeed it might well enough be, that it was only Pretence, and that the Bishop of Constantinople would by this means enlarge his Jurisdiction over the East, though the Emperor wrote to him, that it should be so for this once only, and that for the future the Bishop of Antioch should be Ordained according to the Custom, by an Eastern Synod. The Pope makes Answer to him by Letter 14, dated Ju. 22. 479, in which having commended his Justice, which he had Executed in punishing those who had Murthered the Bishop of Antioch, he tells him, That this Mischief would never have happened, if he had fol∣lowed his Councels, and banished out of the Empire, as he had written to him, Petrus Mongus, and the other Enemies of the Faith, and disturbers of the Publick Peace. Lastly, He approves the Ordinati∣on of the Bishop of Antioch made by Acacius, but upon Condition that the Bishop of Constantinople shall not attempt the like for the future, and the Bishop of Antioch shall be Ordained by the Bishops of his own Country, according to the Ancient Custom. He says almost the same thing to Acacius in the next Letter.

He, whom Acacius had Ordained Bishop of Antioch, dyed in 482, in the third Year of his Ponti∣sicate; and Calendion was Ordained in his place. 'Twas Acacius himself who Ordained him if we may believe the Record of the Acts of the Condemnation of Acacius. However that be, it is evi∣dent,

That Calendion had his Ordination approved by a Council of Eastern Bishops. This did plainly displease Acacius, who was never friends with this Patriarch.

At the same time Timotheus, Bishop of Alexandria. being dead, John Talaia was chosen in his palace, and wrote to Pope Simplicius, under the Title of the Bishop of Alexandria: But the Em∣peror told him at the same time, That he was a perjur'd Person, and unworthy of the Priesthood. This hindered the Pope for some time from acknowledging him; but when he understood, that he had designed to put in P. Mongus into that See, against whom he had written several Letters, he opposed him with all his force, and received John Talaia, who escaped into the West. All these things were done with the Consent of Acacius, or at least without his Opposition. This made Simplicius, after he had written Letter 16. in favour of Calendion, to urge him earnestly in Letter 17, and 18. to oppose the attempts of P. Mongus, and to represent them to the Emperor, that he may not continue in the possession of the See of Alexandria. These Letters are dated Anno. 482. This was the Cause and beginning of the Discontent, which the Holy See had against Acacius, which broke out fully under Faelix the Successor of Simplicius. [These Epistles are ex∣tant among the Councils, Tom. IV. p. 1067.

FAUSTUS, Bishop of * 1.258 Ries.

FAustus a 1.259 an Englishman, or Britain, a Priest, and Monk of Lerins, was chosen Abbot of that Monastry, when St. Maximus removed to the Government of the Church of Ries. While * 1.260 he was Abbot there, he had a Controversie with Theodorus Bishop of Frejus, about the Exemption which was decreed in the Council of Arles, which is called the III, held in 455, which Ordained, That the Bishop should perform all Ordinations, confirm Novices, if there be any in the Abby; and that no strange Clergy-men should be admitted but with his Consent, but that the Care of the Lay-men of the Monastry belongs to the Abbot; That the Bishop hath no Jurisdiction over them, and that he cannot Ordain any one without consent of the Abbot. After the Death of Maximus, Faustus was chosen to fill his place: So that he was his Successor twice, once in his Abbacy, and the second time in his Bishoprick. This gave occasion to Sidonius to ad∣dress these Verses to him,

—Fuerit Quis Maximus ille Urbem tu cujus, Monachos{que} Antistes, & Abbas Bis Successor agis.—

He was present at the Council of Rome, held under Pope Hilary in 462. Being returned into France he composed several Books, Governed the Church unblameably, lived a very Holy Life, was Commended and Honoured by the Greatest Men of his time; and dyed at last in Peace, and in the Communion of the Church.

Gennadius gives us a Part of the Catalogue of this Author's Works:

He hath Written (saith he) on the Occasion of Explaining the Creed, a Book concerning the Holy Spirit; wherein he proves agreeably to the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, that he is of the same Substance with the Father and the Son, and is as well Eternal as both the other Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity. He hath also Composed an Excellent Work about Saving Grace, in which he teacheth, that the Grace of God always allures, precedes, and assists our Will, and that all the reward which our Free-will obtains by its Labour, is not merited by it, but is the Gift of Grace. I have read also, (saith the same Person) a little Book of his written against the Arians and Macedonians, in which he shews, That the three Persons of the Trinity are of the same Essence; and another Treatise against those, who say, That there are Incorporeal Creatures, in which he pretends to prove by Testimonies of Holy Scriptures, and by the Authority of the Holy Fathers, that we ought to believe Nothing Incorporeal but God only. There is one of his Letters written in form of a Book dedicated to a certain Deacon called Gratus, who having departed from the Orthodox Faith, went over to the Nestorian Heresie. He advertiseth him in that Letter, that we must not say, that the Virgin hath brought forth a Man into the World, who afterward became a God; but that she hath brought forth a true God in a true Man. There are other Works of his, which I do not speak of, because I have not read them.

It is known, and his Discourses make it plain, that he was an able Preacher. He hath written since a Letter to Faelix, the Prae∣fectus-Praetorio, a Person descended of the Patricii, and Son of a Consul, in which he exhorts him to Piety. This Writing is very suitable for those who will fit themselves for sincere Penance.

We have still some of those Works of which Gennadius makes mention, but he doth not speak of his Letter to Lucidus the Priest, who was the occasion of writing his two Books of Free-will, and Grace. This Priest was a stiff defender of St. Austin's Doctrine about Grace and Predesti∣nation, and did evidently carry his Principles too far, or at least delivered them in too harsh terms. The greatest part of French Bishops were then of a very contrary Judgment, and Faustus was one of the greatest Opposers of that Doctrine. Having had several Conferences with Lucidus, but not being able to make any Change in him, he sent this Letter, of which we are speaking, to him, to oblige him to change his Opinion. In the beginning he says,

That Charity made him under∣take to endeavour by the Assistance of God, to recover his Brother from the Error, into which he was unwarily faln, rather than Excommunicate him as some Bishops designed to do. He then puts him in mind, that in speaking of Grace and Man's Obedience, we must be very Cautious, that we fall into neither o•• the Extreams; That we must not separate Grace and Humane In∣dustry; That we must a••••ot Pelagius, and detest those that believe, that Man may be among the Number of the Elect without labouring for Salvation. He sets down some Anathema's which he would have him Pronounce. The first is against the Doctrine of Pelagius, who be∣lieves that Man is born without Sin; that he hath no need of the Assistance of Grace, but he may be saved by his own Works. The Second Anathema is for all those who dare assert, that Man, who having been Baptized hath made Profession of Faith in Jesus Christ, falling into Sin is Damned upon the account of Original Sin. The third Anathema is to him, who affirms that the Prescience 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God is the Cause of Damnation. The fourth is to all those that say, that he which Perisheth, hath not received a sufficient strength and ability to save himself, which ought to be understood of Persons Baptized, or of an Heathen, who Lived at a time when he might have believed, and would not. The fifth is to all those, who hold that a Vessel of Dishonour, cannot be made a Vessel of Honour. The sixth and last, is to him that shall assert, that Jesus Christ is not Dead for all Men, and wills not that all Men should be saved. He adds, that he will bring Testimonies to prove these Orthodox Truths, and overthrow the Errors, whenever he pleases to come to him, or he shall be summoned before the Bishops. In sum, he assures him with confidence and truth, that he that Perishes by his fault, might be saved by Grace, if he had obeyed it by his Labour, which ought to follow Grace; and that he that is saved by Grace, may fall by his Negligence and Fault. So that to fix an exact Medium, he joyns the Labour of a Voluntary Service to Grace, without which we are nothing; but he excludes Pride and Presumption, which may creep in upon the account of our Labours, knowing that it is our Duty to do what we can. He calls upon him to declare his Opinions thereupon, advertising him, that if he will not follow the true Doctrine, he will deserve to be banished from the Church, in whose bosom he hopes that he abides.

Lastly, he adds, that he keeps a Copy of this Letter to make it appear, if it be necessary, in the Assembly of Bishops, which * 1.261 must meet; and ex∣horts Lucidus to Subscribe it, or to abandon fairly and clearly in Writing, the Errors, which it condemns.

Although we find at the end of this Letter the Subscriptions of several Bishops; It is never∣theless true, as F. Sirmondus thinks, that it is no bodies but Faustus's; and that it is he only, that wrote it in his own Name: Also from the time of Hincmarus, it hath been Subscribed by none but him, as in the best MSS. and particularly in that which Canisius used.

It is then certain, that it is not the Letter of a Council, but he speaks of a Council to be held soon after, to which Lucidus was to be cited, if he persisted in his own Error; but this Good Priest being come to the Council, soon yielded to the Opinions of Faustus and his Colleagues, and did not satisfie himself to pronounce the Anathema's set down in his Letter; but he likewise ad∣ded it against other Propositions, and directed his Letter, or rather Retraction, to Leontius Bishop of Arles, and Twenty four other Bishops, who had made up a Council, where they compelled Lucius to Recant; for he saith, that he made that Retractation juxta praedicandi recentia Statuta Concilii; and he Condemns with these Bishops,

I. Him that asserts, That we must not joyn the Labour of Humane Obedience to the Grace of God.

II. Him that saith, That since the Sin of the First Man, the Free-will of Man is entirely lost.

III. Him that affirms, That Our Saviour Jesus Christ dyed not for all Men.

IV. Him that says, That the fore-knowledge of God forced Man, and Damns by Violence, and that those that are Damned, are so by the Will of God.

V. Those that say, That they that Sin after Baptism dye in Adam.

VI. Those that Teach, That some are Destined to Death, and others Predestined to Life. The Bishops of the Council of Valentia seem to have determined since the contrary to this Proposi∣tion in the third Canon; where they deliver, that they boldly own and assert a Predestination of the Elect to Life, and of Sinners to Death.

VII. He condemns the Doctrine of those who teach, That from Adam to Jesus Christ, none a∣mong the Heathens hoping in the Coming of Jesus Christ, were saved by the First Grace, i. e. by the Law of Nature, because they have lost their Free-will in Adam.

VIII. Those who affirm, That the Patriarchs and Prophets, and the great Saints before the Redemption, have their habitation in Paradise.

He adds afterwards some Propositions, contrary to the Foregoing, He saith then,

1. That he acknowledgeth the Grace of God; but after such a manner as that he joyns Man's endeavour and Labour with it.

2. That he doth not say. That the Free-will is lost, but only that it is weakned and impai••ed▪ and that he that is Sayed might have been Damned, and he that is Damned, might have been Saved.

3. That Our Saviour out of the Riches of his Goodness hath tasted Death for every Man.

4. That he desireth not the Death of him that dyeth, but is rich unto all that call upon him.

5. He professes that Jesus Christ dyed for the Wicked, and for those, who have been Damned contrary to his Will.

6. He confesseth also, that according to the disposition and order of Ages▪ some have been Saved by the Law of Moses, and others by the Law of Nature, which God hath written 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Hearts of all Men, by the hope of the coming▪ of Jesus Christ. It is very hard to salve▪ this Proposition as well as the Condemnation in the Seventh, if we understand it Literally, since none but Pelagius hath dared to affirm, That Men have been saved by the Law of Moses and by Na∣ture. But Faustus and others understand it plainly in another sense, i. e. That the Law▪ and Na∣ture have contributed to their Salvation: And for this reason it is, that Lucidus adds. That no Man can be purged from Original Sin, but by the Intercession of the blood of Jesus Christ▪ ••n the last place, He acknowledges Hell-Fire, and Unquenchable ••••ames are prepared for those who have Committed heinous Crimes; because they continue in their Sin, they are justly condemned to Punishment, which they also deserve that do not believe these truths. The Letter concludes with these words, Orate pro me, Sancti & Apostolici Patres, &c. O Holy and Apostolick▪ Fathers, pray for me: I Lucidus the Priest have Subscribed this Epistle with my own Hand; and I affirm all that is affirmed in it, and condemn all that is condemned in it.

The Bishops of the Council of Arles appointed Faustus Bishop of Ries to write upon this Subject, as he tells us in the Preface to his Treatise of Free-will and Grace, Dedicated to Leontrus Bishop of Arles. These are his Words. You have done, O my Blessed Father, a great deal of good to all the French Churches, in assembling a Council of Bishops to condemn the Error of Predestination. But me∣thinks you have not sufficiently provided for your reputation, in commanding me to put in order, and set down in Writing what was said in your Conferences; for I am sensible of my inabilities to perform it as it ought to be. The honourable judgment which your Charity hath passed upon my abilities, hath caused you to make a Choice of which you have Reason to repent. At the end of this Preface, that after this Work was finished, the Council of Lyons had ordered something to be added to it.

F. Sirmondus concludes from these Records, That the Council of Arles was held about the year 475, consisting of 30 French Bishops▪ against the Predestinarians Heresie, which began in the time of St. Austin, and had its Original in the Monastery of Adrumetum; from whence it passed in∣to France, where it was opposed by Hilary and Prosper, and condemned by Caelestine; That it was supported by St. Austin's Writings not rightly understood, as is observed in the Chronicon of Tiro Prosper and Sigibert, opposed by the Author of the Book of Heresies. Entitled Praedestinatus, and by Arnobius Junior; ranked among the Heresies by Gennadius at the end of St. Austin's Book; revived in the Ninth Age by Gotteschalci, and confuted at the same time by Rabanus and Hincma∣rus. That Lucidus, who was engaged in this Heresie, was summoned to the Council of Arles, where this Question was disputed; and he was ordered by this Council to make the Recantation of which we have already spoken That Eaustus in his Books of Grace doth only deliver the Judgment of this Council; That his Work was afterward approved in another Council of Lyons; that this Bishop is of very Orthodox Sentiments, and is still honoured as a Saint; and that Jo∣annes Maxentius, and Gotteschalci do wrongfully enveigh so much against him. This is almost all that F. Sirmondus saith about this matter, in his History of the Predestinarians.

But on the other side some able Divines maintain, that this Heresie is a meer Chimaera, and a Calumny which the Semi-Pelagians made use of to blacken the Scholars of St. Austin: That there were no Predestinarians in the time of S. Austin; That the Monks of Adrumetum who are made the first Authors of this Heresie, never thought of any such thing, but that all the contest, that was a∣mong them, proceeded from hence, that they were not rightly understood; That Cresconius and Faelix had accused Florus of denying Free-will, and the Judgment which God will render to every Man according to their Works, because they did not well understand his Sentiments, and that indeed St. Austin, who upon the relation of these two Monks, had believed that Florus was in an Error, having heard him himself, found, that he had not a false Opinion touching Grace, and that it was not he, that deserved reproof, but they, who did not understand him, when he explained his Judgment. That as to the Controversie, which arose among the French some time after; it is evident, that they are not the Predestinarians, which St. Prosper and Hilary oppose, but the Ene∣mies of the Doctrine of St. Austin, who imputed to his Scholars the same Doctrines, which were attributed to the Predestinarians. The Authors alledged for the justification of this Heresie are much to be suspected. The first is Tiro Prosper, an Author of little Credit, who says, that this Heresie is not taken out of St. Austin's books not rightly understood, as Sigibert hath corrected it, but out of St. Austin himself, q•••• ab Augustino accepisse dicitur initium, which proves, that he that inserted this place in St. Prosper's Chronicon was an Enemy to St. Austin. Predestinatus is an Author full of faults and Pelagian Errors. The same may be said of Arnobius, who doth not ac∣knowledge

Original Sin. Gennadius was a Learned man, but well known to be a favourer of the Semi-Pelagians. As for Paustus, 'tis certain he was their head; That Gelasius hath condemned his Books. That St. Fulgentius hath confuted them in 7 Books, approved by the Council of Sar∣d•…•…; That Caesarius hath written against his Doctrines in a Book approved by Pope Faelix; That Pope H••rmisd•••• hath rejected the••; That Petrus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath pronounced Anathema against him; That the Head of a Sect so often condemned, ought not to be looked upon as a Saint; That he was in another very dangerous Error, maintaining, that all Creatures are Corporeal; That all that he says of the Council of Arles, and the approbation given to his Books by the Council of Lyons, is not true; or that the Authority of these Councils is of little consequence, since they were made of Semi-Pelagian Bishops. Lastly, that this Ancient Calumny against the Scholars of St. Austin being Re•…•… in the 9th Age, the Church of Lyons maintain'd that this Heresie of the •…•…stinarians wa•• a Chim••ra; That there never was any such Hereticks, or to be sure, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in his time. If we now pass from Authority to Reason, and come to examine the Doctrines, the pretended Errors, which are fastened upon the Predestinarians, are the very same, which the S•…•…-Pelagians upbraided the Scholars of St. Austin withal, as it is easie to see by comparing them with the Objections of Vincentius the French, and Priests of Genoua, which Saint Prosper hath fully answered.

This is the Sum of what is said on both sides on this Subject. 'Tis not for us to judge between so knowing Persons as F. Sirmondus and his Adversaries, in a matter of this Concernment. Non nostrum inter vo•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 comp••••ere lites. We freely own, that both have reason on their side. Et Vitula 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dignus, & hic. &c. But we take our selves obliged to say on the contrary, that neither of them have hit upon the right, and their prejudice hath made them judge of things not as they are, but as they thought they ought to be. Now that which seems to us to be most proba∣ble in this business, is this. The Books which St. Austin wrote against the Pelagians, being pub∣lished made different impressions upon the minds of the Orthodox. They confessed all, that he had reason to maintain Original Sin, and the Necessity of Grace, in order to Salvation; but af∣ter that for the confutation of the Pelagians, he had raised subtle and nice Questions, spoken in a way different from the greatest part of the Fathers, that went before him, and laid down Principles about the way in which Grace is given, and operates in the heart of Man, about Pre∣destination, and the Calling of the Elect, so uncommon before his time, as he himself owns, and which he was himself ignorant before he was wholly engaged in this dispute. These Matters being extreamly abstract and difficult, put those to a great deal of pains, who lived in his time. And from that time they were the Original of Quarrels, Division, and Hatred among the Or∣thodox, and have been so ever since, as often as they have been revived. Cassian, the Priests of Marseille, Hilary Bishop of Arles, Vincentius Lerinensis, and the greatest part of the French could not entirely approve the Doctrine of St. Austin, being perswaded that it was too rigorous, and that bad consequences might be drawn from it. This appears by the Letters of St. Prosper and St. Hilary, written to St. Austin about that Matter. It is probable, that some unskilful Persons, who had not Wit enough to understand throughly the true Sentiments of St. Austin, nor Saga∣city enough to find out the agreement between them and that which we ought to believe, con∣cerning the freedom of Man and the Necessity of good Works, have given an occasion of drawing these pernicious Consequences; either because they came very near them, or because they were not interpreted right. And indeed we must own it, and St. Austin himself confesses as much, that it is necessary to use great circumspection in explaining Vocation and Predestination, accor∣ding to his Principles, in such a manner as may incline us neither to negligence nor despair. This was it which raised the Dispute in the Monastry of Adrumetum. Florus having brought thi∣ther from Uzel the Writings of St. Austin concerning Grace, and explaining his Doctrine in a very coarse manner, had given the Monks ground to believe that he denied Free-will, and that Ju∣stice by which God must render to every Man according to his Works. Valentinus the President of that Monastry was forced to permit two of the Monks, named Crisconius and Faelix, to go to St. Austin, and propound their Scruples to him, which they did. They perswaded him that there were some Monks, in their Monastry which denied Free-will. Wherefore he wrote the * 1.262 224th Letter to free them from that Error, and shew them how his Principles are made to ac∣cord with Man's Free-will. Afterward having spoken to Florus, he declares that this Monk had not interpreted him aright, or did not well understand him; wherefore he made a Book on pur∣pose to reconcile Grace and Free-will together. But his Explication not yet satisfying these Monks, he wrote his Book * 1.263 of Correction and Grace, to Answer their Principal Objection. We know not what effect this Book wrought among the Monks of Adrumetum; but it did not con∣tent the Priests of Marseille, but on the contrary their doubts were encreased by the reading of it. Saint Prosper and Hilarius sent St. Austin word of it, and wrote him what were the Prin∣ciples of these Persons. We have related them in making the extract of their Epistles, which are 225, 226, among St. Austin's. This Saint endeavours to explain these Opinions in his Books of the Predestination of Saints, and of the gift of Perseverance; but the more he explained himself, the less his Principles pleased the French; and the more they were perswaded, that he denied Free-will and introduced a Fatal Necessity. This was the Rumour that was current among the French about the Subject of these Books. They also made an abundance of Objections against his Doctrine. These Objections consisted in Erroneous Opinions, which they imputed to him, in pernicious Consequences, which they pretended to follow from his Doctrine, and in odious

Interpretations of some of his Opinions. His Death did not put an end to this Controversie, but to the Contrary augmented it. Saint Prosper, who had declared for his Doctrine, defended it by publick Writings, and answered the Objections, which were proposed against it. On the other side, his Adversaries extolled those Priests, who opposed St. Austin's Doctrine, and accused his Scholars of Error; insomuch that St. Prosper and Hilary, being badly used among the French were forced to appeal to Saint Caelestine, who wrote to the French Bishops to enjoyn those Priests Si∣lence, and not endure them to disgrace the Memory of St. Austin. Nevertheless this did not ap∣pease the Disputes; they still continued, and were managed with more heat and passion. Althô neither of them were separated from the Church; yet they began to use each other cruelly. Saint Prosper accuses his Adversaries of reviving the Errors of the Pelagians about Grace, and calls them Ingrateful and Presumptuous. And these on the contrary called their Adversaries Predesti∣narians, upon the Account of the Errors which they imputed to them, and which some main∣tained, perhaps for want of rightly understanding things, or of well explaining themselves. The strongest party among the French was that, which was not of St. Austin's Opinion. Faustus was not the only Enemy, which those which they call'd Predestinarians, had; the greatest Part of the French Bishops were, as we have said, of the same Sentiments. We must not wonder then, if they held a Council at Arles in 475, against these pretended Predestinarians; if they made Lu∣cidus to Retract, charged Faustus to write against this Error; and if they approved his Book af∣terward in another Council. These are Matters of Fact, too well confirmed to be called in question; but this doth not really prove, that there was an Heresie of Predestinarians at that time, no more than that these Bishops were Hereticks; it only proves that there were then dis∣putes about Grace; that as is usual in the heat of Dispute, both parties carried things too high, and that as those, who held the Doctrine of St. Austin, not explaining themselves well, gave occasion to others to impute Errors to them; so these on their side afforded them a cause against them, by condemning St. Austin's Opinions. It is true, that both of them accused each other of Heresie and Error; but we must not trust to such sort of Accusations, propounded by Persons suspected on both sides. For all the Authors who speak of the Heresie of the Predestinarians, are much to be suspected as a sufficient proof, because they are on the Contrary Party; And they that accuse Faustus of Heresie, and those of his Party, do it only because they opposed some of St. Austin's Principles, not regarding that at the time, when he Wrote, he might do it with∣out being accounted an Heretick; and that several Fathers before and after St. Austin have spo∣ken and thought as he did, without being accused for Hereticks for it. His two Books of Grace and firee-will are written with a great deal of Moderation and Caution; He rejects most plainly and sincerely the Errors of Pelagius; He acknowledges Original Sin, and the necessity of Grace to do well, and obtain Salvation; He owns, that the Free-will is much weakned since the Sin of Adam; but he maintains, that there remains some slender knowledge of good, some seeds of Virtue; that we can know, and desire to do good with the assistance of Grace, and cannot do it without it, but that God denies his Grace to no Man; That the Labour of Man accompanies this Grace, and that he must obey his motions; That God knows from all Eternity the Good and Evil, which all Men shall do; that he foresees all their Actions, and the end they will have, but he Predestines no Man to Salvation or Damnation. He thereupon sets down all the Texts which are alledged for Predestination and Grace, and expounds them according to his own Opinions. These are the Contents of these two Books, which are to say truly, an Explication of those Pro∣positions only, which are delivered in his Letter to Lucidus. Many Orthodox Authors have writ∣ten and spoken thus, and there is nothing in them but may be defended; but althô there were something to be reproved, he ought not for all that to be used as an Heretick, much less be made the Ring-leader of Heresie, since there hath not been any thing designed thereupon. I will not pursue this History further, because we shall have occasion to speak hereafter of the Renovation of these Disputes, which were never managed without Noise and Heat. And indeed two Rea∣sons seem to make it unavoidable. 1. The Subtlety and Depth of these Questions, wherein Humane Understanding is easily lost. 2. The Consequences which each draw from the Princi∣ples of their Adversaries, of which some seem to inspire Men with Pride and Presumption, and the other to cast them into Negligence and Despair. But if we would consult our own Reason a little, we shall see on both sides so many Depths, Precipices, and Rocks, as would make us tremble. So that it were better and more advantageous to the Church of God, and every Chri∣stian, to live in Peace and Silence, and not desire to dive into such impenetrable Secrets, to hold that for a certain Maxim, that we ought to beg the Divine Assistance continually; but at the same time to work out our own Salvation with fear and trembling. But 'tis time to return to Faustus's Works. We have also a Letter to Gratus, wherein he confutes the Errors of Nestorius, and lays down the manner, how the Orthodox should speak concerning the Person of Jesus Christ. We have also a small Tract, wherein he Explains, how that Son, who is begotten of the Father, is of the Substance with the Father, and Co-Eternal. To this he adds an Explication of what he had said in his Letter to Gratus, that God did not suffer by the Senses, but only by a kind of Com∣passion. The last Question which he treats of in this Writing, is of the Nature of the Soul, he maintains, that it, and all Creatures are Corporeal. Gennadius hath divided this Treatise into two Parts, and speaks of the last as a distinct Treatise. This is that, which Mamertus endeavours the Confutation of.

The Letter▪ to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is yet preserved, but we have not the Trea∣tise of the Holy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉; nor another Treatise, Composed by way of Dialogue, comme 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉; But we have two discourses to the Monks, some other among the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which bear the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Eusebius Emesenus, and a Letter to one named 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he answers some Questions which he had proposed to him. The first is concerning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of those who are at the point of Death. Faustus answers, that that is very uncertain. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is, Whether the Faith in the Trinity be sufficient for Salvation? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 answers, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it be accompanied with Good Works; and althô they have been Baptized, yet if they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one of the three 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sins, Sacriledge, Murther, and Adultery, they shall be Damned Eternally, if they do not make an Attonement by Penance. The Last is about the Nature of the Soul, and Punishments after Death. Faustus holds the Soul to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Corporeal; and Eternal Punishments, but more or less severe according to the greatness of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. He hath also five Letters to Ruricius, but they contain nothing re∣markable in them.

The Style of Faustus is plain, easie, and clear, full of Antitheses and Rhymes. His Notions and Arguments are very rational and apposite. He is full of Spiritual Maxims, and Moral Pre∣cepts. One part of his Works, which we have already spoken of was in the Old Bibliotheca Patrum, Canisius hath published the Rest. They are all in the last Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 8. p. 523.] Printed at Lyons.

RURICIUS, DESIDERIUS, and some Others.

WE have a Collection of 64 Letters of Ruricius Bishop of Lemovicum, who lived about the end of this Age, and dyed at the beginning of the Next; of 14 Let∣ters * 1.264 of Desiderius Bishop of Cadurcum, and some other Letters Written to these two Bishops by some of their Colleagues; but they are Ordinary Letters plea∣santly Written, which contain nothing remarkable in them. We may find them in Canisius, and in the last Bibliotheca Patrum, Printed at Lyons.

APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS, Bishop of Clermont.

C. Sollius Ap. Sidonius, descended of an Illustrious Family, whose Father and Grand-Father had been Praefecti-Praetorio's among the French, was born at Lyons about the Year 430. * 1.265 He was brought up with Care, performed his Studies under the most excellent Masters of that time, and became very skilful in all parts of Learning, but especially in Poetry. He Married Papianilla, the Daughter of Avitus, who from a French Praefect was raised to the Imperial Throne after the Death of Maximus. But Majorianus, whom Leo had taken to be a Partner with him in the Empire, forced him to lay down his Crown, and came to besiege the City of Lyons, where Sidonius had shut up himself. The City being taken, he fell into the hands of his Enemy, but the reputation of his Learning made him his Friend; so that he received all the Favours from him, which he could desire, or hope for; and as a grateful acknowledgment of them he made a Panegyrick in his Honour, which was so well taken, that he Erected Sidonius's Statue in the City of Rome. The Emperour Anthemius did more honorably requite the Panegy∣rick, which Sidonius made in his Honour, by making him Governor of the City of Rome, and afterward raised him to the Dignity of a Patrician; but he soon quitted his Secular employments to follow the Calling or God, who called him to the Government of the Church. The See of Clermont being Vacant in 472, by the Death of Eparchius, Sidonius who was no more than a Lay-man as yet, was chosen to take his Place without competition. Immediately he applied himself to those Studies, which were most agreeable to his Ministry, or which he performed all the Offi∣ces with all the Care and Prudence possible. The reputation of his Wisdom was so much con∣firmed, that being Summoned to the City of Bourges, whose See was Vacant, all the Bishops that were there, did with one consent refer the Election of the Bishop to him. He appointed Simplicius, and his Choice was approved, and followed by all the World. He had a truly Pasto∣ral Charity for all the Poor of his Diocese; He distributed all his Estate to them, and sold also all his Plate for their Relief; which being done without the knowledge of his Wife, she was forced to redeem it. He maintained at his own Charge, with the help of his Wife's Brother Ecdicius, more than 4000 Burgundians, who were Banished out of their own Countrey. He

often went his Visitations in his Diocese, and was one of the first of the French Bishops, who in∣troduced into his Church the use of Rogations, which were then newly appointed by Mamertus Bishop of Vienna.

Clermont being besieged by the Goths, he encouraged the People to stand upon their defence, and would never consent to the Surrender of the City; insomuch, that when it was delivered up, he was forced to fly out of it, but was soon restored, and continued to govern his Church, as he did before. Some time after he was assaulted by two Priests, who deprived him of the Government of his Church; but one of them coming to a Miserable end, Sidonius was again se•…•…led with Honour at the end of the Year. He dyed in Peace, Aug. 21. Anno. * 1.266 487, after he had been Bishop 15 years, and had lived 66 Years. His Festival is kept upon the same day in the Church of Clermont, where his Memory is in great veneration. Before his Death he Nominated Aprunculus for his Successor, who having been heretofore Bishop of Langres was forced to retreat.

Of all the Writers of that time there was none more Learned, or that wrote more Elegantly either in Prose or Verse, than Sidonius; from whence it is, that Cl. Mamertus calls him the most Eminent of the Eloquent, the most Skilful of all the Learned Men of his Age, and the Restorer of the Ancient Eloquence. His Writings confirm this honourable Censure, for they are full of ingenuity and vigour; His Notions are curious, grateful, and well handled; He hath such plenty and variety of Subjects, as is very Surprizing and Charming; He uses proper, significant, and extraordinary Words, and sometimes mixes some that are not true Latin; He hath many flights of Wit; His Discourses are truly Epistolar, i. e. Concise, Pleasant, full of Points, and di∣verting Fancies; He is excellent in his Descriptions and Draughts, which are the principal Or∣naments of his Writings: Nevertheless his Style is too lofty and subtle for his Sense, and he of∣fends, as I may say, in being too Witty. This great subtlety, together with his profound Learn∣ing makes him sometimes obscure, and hard to be understood. He ventures at some Expressi∣ons, Metaphors, and Comparisons, which not many in the World can relish. He had a very Poetical Wit, and ready faculty of making Verses, of which he composed many Extempore; but he never bestowed the pains to polish and perfect them. He wrote several small Treatises in Prose and Verse, but he preserved them only that he thought fittest to be left to Posterity. He Collected himself Nine Books of Letters; He had began an History of Attilas's Wars, but he left it unfinished, and therefore would not have it Published; His principal Poems are three Pa∣negyricks upon three Emperors, Avitus, Majorianus, and Anthemius: The other are a Collection of Poems upon particular Subjects directed to his Friends.

His Letters are full of infinite points of Learning, and Prophane History. There are very few of them, wherein he speaks of Religion; yet there are some from which we may draw ob∣servations of the Discipline then in use. So in Letter 24. l. 4. he describes the Bishop of Tholouse called Maximus, to whom he went to desire him to give a Friend of his a longer time for the payment of a Sum, which his Friends Father had borrowed of Maximus before he was Bishop. He says, that having known him heretofore, he found him wholly changed, that his Cloathing, Countenance, and Discourse savoured of nothing but Modesty and Piety; that he had short Hair and a long Beard; that his Houshold-stuff was plain; that he hath nothing but Wooden Benches, Stuff Curtains, a Bed without Feathers, and a Table without a Carpet, and that the ordinary food of his Family was Pulse more than Flesh. Sidonius being surprized to see so great an Alte∣ration in him, asked him of what profession he was, whether he were a Monk, a Clerk, or a Penitent; and he answered him, That lately he had been made a Bishop against his Will. This teaches us, that the Life, Habit, and Houshold-stuff of a Bishop ought to be like a Monks, and a Penitents. He ought to do that out of Humility, which others are obliged to do by their Profession and Condition. This Bishop forgave the Interest, which amounted to as much again as the Principal, and gave his Debtor time to pay him, joyning Mercy with Humility.

Sidonius teaches us in Lett. 14. Lib. 5. and Lett. 1. L. 6. that the Rogations were instituted by Mamertus Bishop of Vienna. 'Tis to no purpose to say, that they were appointed before, and that he only restored them; for Sidonius says positively, that it was St. Mamertus, qui primus invenit, instituit, invexit. Processions indeed were used before, but there was no determinate time for them, and they were performed indevoutly, seldom, and very negligently. They were inter∣mingled with Feasting, and never performed but to procure Rain or Fair Weather, Vagae, tepen∣tes, infrequentesque at{que} ut ita dicam, oscitabundae supplicationes, quae saepe interpellantum prandiorum obicibus hebetabantur. But St. Mamertus fixed the time, and manner of them, and commanded them to joyn Fasting, Prayers, singing of Psalms and Lamentations with them. According to the example of St. Mamertus the Church of Clermont, and several others took up the same Cu∣stom, which in a short time spread into all the Churches of the World.

He observes in Lett. 17. Lib, 5. That the Annual Festivals of the Saints were kept with very great Solemnity; That the People flocked to the Church in throngs before Day; that they light up a great many Tapers; that the Monks and Clerks sung the Vigils in two Quires; and that about Noon they Celebrated the Mass.

The Discourse which he made at the Election of the Bishop of Bourges, recited afterward in Lett. 9. Lib. 7. demonstrates, how weighty an affair it is to have the choice of a Bishop devolved on him; and how hard it is to Content all the World.

If I nominate a Monk, saith he, it will

be said that he is fit to make an Abbot, and not a Bishop; If I choose an humble Person, they will fear, lest he should be contemptible. On the contrary, if I take a Courageous and Reso∣lute Person, they will accuse him of being Proud; if I pitch upon a Learned Man, they will say immediately, that he will be Arrogant; if he be a Person of mean Learning, they will de•• ride his Ignorance; if I name a severe Man, they will look upon him as a Cruel Man; if he be Mild, they will blame his easiness, &c. If I choose a Clergy Man, they that are above him, will despise him, and they that are inferior to him, will envy him. Age and Antiquity among the Clergy are the only things almost that are considered at present; as if the number of years that they have been in the Clergy, did confer worth upon those that have none, and as if it were a sufficient qualification for the Priesthood to have lived long, though they have not lived well. There are Ecclesiastical Persons, who having been all their lives careless of the discharge of their Ministerial Function, ready to answer, accustomed to make idle Discourses, heads of Parties and Factions, defective in Charity, always wavering, always envious, yet contend for a Bishoprick at the end of their lives, and desire to Govern others at an age wherein they have need to be Governed themselves.

But since this discourse might displease the Clergy of the Church to whom he spoke, he cunningly appeased them, by saying, that his design was not to blame many for the ambition of a few, but by naming no Man particularly, those, who took offence at what he said, would discover their disposition; That there were several in that Church that deserved to be Bishops, but all that were worthy of it, could not be. Having thus disposed their minds to approve his Choice, which he was about to make, he swore by the Name of the Holy Spirit, that he was not sway'd by any Humane Consideration, by Money or Favour to pro∣ceed in it, and then declared, that he had fixed his Eyes upon Simplicius, who was the Clerk of that Church, whom he Commended: And since they had all sworn, that they would submit to his Judgment in the Election, he pronounced in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that it was Simplicius, who ought to be Bishop of Bourges, and Metropolitan of his Province. This is all that is observable in Sidonius's Letters concerning the Discipline of the Church. They also discover to us the Names of many Bishops of that time, to whom these Let∣ters are directed, and which are all called Popes, according to the Custom of that time.

The Learned Savaron published the Works of this Author in the last year of the former Age, * 1.267 cleared from a great number of Faults, and enriched with many very Learned Notes, which make the Text very plain, and Contain in them several very Useful and Curious Remarks. To undertake a New Edition after so Learned a Man, as no body seemed to desire it, so it might be looked upon as a thing needless and inconsiderate. Yet his did not much discourage F. Sir∣mondus, who had taken much pains upon this Author, before the Work of Savaron appeared, from putting out his Labours, by causing Sidonius's Works to be Printed [at Paris] in 1614 [8 vo.] which have given an ample proof of the excellency of his Understanding, and depth of his Learn∣ing; for althô there seemed nothing to have escaped the exact observation of Savaron, yet F. Sirmondus hath found many things fit to be taken notice of and explained, which Savaron had passed over; and hath made such Rational, Learned, Curious, and well-chosen Notes, that they far excell Savaron's in Judgment of all the World almost. Nevertheless 'tis good to have both the Editions and it were to be wished, that one were put out with the Notes of both these Learned Men. Since the Death of Sirmondus his Sidonius hath been Reprinted with some augmentations. This Edition was by Cramoisy in 4 to, in the Year 1652. There is also found at the end of it a Catalogue of Sirmondus's Works. [Besides the forementioned Editions of Sidonius's Works, we have also others viz. at Basil in 1542, 4 to, with the [Commentary of Joan. Bapt. Pius, which being Revised by Elias Vietus was Printed at Lyons in 1552, 8 vo. They are also Printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Tom. VI. p. 1075.]

JOANNES TALAIA, or TALAIDA.

JOannes Talaia, or Talaida, a Monk of Teb••••ma, was chosen Bishop of Alexandria in 481. Immediately after his Ordination he wrote Letters of Communion to Simplicius Bishop of * 1.268 Rome, and Calendion; but he omitted to write to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople. Acacius being offended at these proceedings, stirred up the Emperor Zeno against him, accusing him as guilty of Perjury, and a Favourer of Hillus; insomuch, that he was forced to fly into Italy a little after his Election. Since he could not return to his own Bishoprick, the Church of Nola was committed to his Care and Government. Photius mentions an Apology, which he wrote to Gelasius Bishop of Rome; in which he condemns not only the Heresie of Pelagius, but also Pe∣lagius Caelestius, and Julian, who succeeded them in that Sect. We have not this Work. It was composed about the Year 492.

JOHN, a Priest of Antioch.

John, who of a Grammarian was made a Priest of Antioch, hath written, saith Gennadius, a∣gainst * 1.269 those that maintain, that we ought to Worship Jesus Christ, as having only one Na∣ture, and that acknowledge but one Nature in his Person. In it he opposes some Proposi∣tions of St. Cyril. He says, that he spake them inconsiderately against the Nestorians; but they confirm, and help to uphold the Error of the Timotheans, which he himself says impertinently, and groundlesly, according to the Testimony of Gennadius: He was alive when Gennadius wrote this. He made Sermons Ex tempore, and without any Preparation. We have not any thing of his Writing remaining.

JOANNES AEGEATES. * 1.270

JOannes Aegeates * 1.271 a Nestorian Priest hath composed a Church-History, which begins at the Empire of Theodosius the younger, when Nestorius divulged his Heresie, and was deposed; and ends with the Empire of Zeno, and the Deposition of Petrus Fullo. The style of this Author was Noble and Florid. He relates the 3d general Council held at Ephesus, and that of the other Council held at the same place under Dioscorus, to which they give the name of an Assembly of Thieves, but yet this Author makes it an Holy Synod; and Dioscorus and his Com∣panions Saints. He also made the History of the Council of Chalcedon, but it was full of Abuses and Calumnies. The same John Aegeates hath also written a Book on purpose against the Council of Chalcedon, he had promised 10 Books, but Photius, from whom we have taken all this, had never seen but five; which begin, as we have said, with Nestorius, and ended at the Deposition of P. Fullo. We have nothing of them, but only some Fragments recited in the Second Council of Nice, Tom. 7. of the Councils, p. 369. and in the Collections of Theodorus, L. 2. p. 563.

VICTOR VITENSIS.

VIctor Bishop of Vita, a City of Baza••eum, rather than of Utica, a 1.272 a City of the Procon∣sular * 1.273 Province, hath Written an History of the Persecution of the Orthodox of Africk under Gensericus and Hunnericus, Kings of the Vandals. This Persecution began in the Year 427, when Gensericus went into Africk with Twenty four thousand Persons, as well Men, as Women and Children. He made strange Devastations in that Country, and laid it all wast by Murthers, Plunders, and Flames. He chiefly fell upon the Churches and Mo∣nastries, which he destroyed with Fire and Sword. He slew a great number of Bishops and Clergy-men; after he had put them to a thousand Tortures, that he might force them to disco∣ver the Treasure of the Church. Having made himself Master of all the Provinces of Africa in a short time; He besieged Carthage, and having taken it, he Banished the Bishops and Clergy, possessed himself of their Churches. He banished also the greatest part of the Bishops of other Churches. He passed from thence into Italy; took and Sack'd the City of Rome in 455. Being returned into Africk grown Proud and Insolent, with the thoughts of his Victory, he continued to afflict the Churches of that Country; and to Persecute the Orthodox with greater Cruelty than ever: This Persecution continued 37 Years. After his Death his Son Hunnericus did at first use them with more lenity, having granted at the request of the Emperor Zeno, and the Empress Placidia, that they should ordain an Orthodox Bishop at Carthage, upon condition that the Arian Bishops should have liberty of using their Worship in the City of the Empire. This Condition was never performed, but yet they ordain'd Eugenius Bishop of Carthage. But the Arians soon raised a cruel Persecution against the Catholicks, and sent them an Edict, in which it was commanded, That Eugenius, and the Orthodox Bishops should come to Carthage to confer with the Bishops of the Vandals, about their Doctrine. This order being shewed Eugenius, he made Answer, That the Bishops of other Provinces ought to be cited to this Conference, because it being the common concern of all the Orthodox Church, it was reasonable that the Bishops of the whole World should be present at it; and especially the Bishop of the Church of Rome, who was the Head of other Churches. Nevertheless, being constrain'd to appear, he did so, and after some contests, he read the Confession of Faith, which he had already prepared. But this conference was but a Pre∣tence, which they made use of to Persecute the Orthodox. King Hunnericus published an Edict against them, which contained the same punishments against the Orthodox, which the Orthodox Emperors had decreed by their Edicts against the Arians. He shut up the Churches of the Or∣thodox, which he gave to the Arians; and banished the Orthodox Bishops to the Isleof Corsica. They were in Number 466, of which 88 dyed at Carthage, and the rest were conveyed to the Isle Corsica. This was followed by an horrible Persecution against the Orthodox, upon whom they laid infi∣nite Torments. Such was the deplorable estate of the African Churches at that time, which had been heretofore most flourishing and glorious. Victor of Vita, who was a sharer in this Persecu∣tion hath described it in five Books, in a very plain and affecting Style. This Work hath been Printed in several Collections, and Published at Dijon in 1664. by F. Chiffletius, with the Works of Vigilius Tapsensis, [at Colen, in 1535, at Paris in 1541, by the care of B. Rhenanus, at Paris, in 1569, 8vo. at the end of Optatus Milevitanus, with Baldwin's Notes, as also in the Bibliothecâ Patrum. Tom. 8. p. 675.]

VIGILIUS TAPSENSIS.

VIgilius Bishop of Thapsus, a City in the Province of Bazacium in Africa, was one of those who was banished Africa by King Hunnericus a 1.274. As he lived in a time, when Africa was under the Government of the Arians, and the East infected with the Errors of the * 1.275

Nestorians and Eutychians; he applied himself diligently to oppose these three Heresies, but he did it ordinarily under the Name of those Fathers of the Church, who had lived before him, ei∣ther because by suppressing his own Name he might avoid Persecution, or because his Works would be of great weight, and have a better effect, being put out under the Name of such illustrious Persons. Wherefore he published under the Name of St. Athanasius twelve Books upon the Tri∣nity, by way of Dialogue; a Treatise against an Arian called Varimadus, under the Name of Idacius Clarus; a Book against Faelicianus the Arian under the Name of St. Austin. He hath al∣so made two Conferences, in which he brings in Athanasius disputing against Arius before a Judge, whom he calls Probus, who gives Sentence for Athanasius. There are two Editions of these Con∣ferences. The first, which is the most ordinary, is divided into two Books, wherein all the Dis∣pute is managed between Athanasius and Arrius; but he brings into it * 1.276 in the Second Edition, which is larger than the First, and divided into three Parts, I say, he brings in Sabellius and Pho∣tius. It cannot be doubted, but that this Last Work belongs to Vigilius Tapsensis since he cites it in his five Books against Eutyches, which are the only Work he hath published under his own Name. In this Work he confutes the Eutychian Doctrine, by Scripture, and the Testimony of the Fathers of the Church. He defends St. Leo's Letter, and the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, against the Objections of those Hereticks. He observes by the by, that the Custom of Uni∣versal and Orthodox Councils, is to make new Decisions against New Heresies, without meddling with what hath been determined in former Councils, which remains in full force and vigour. There is also a place in the third Book worthy our Notice, wherein he says, that the Christians have received by Jesus Christ, the abundance of Corn, Wine, and Oyl, promised to the Poste∣rity of Esau; having been Consecrated by the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and by the Holy Chrisme. Corporis, & Sanguinis Christi & Chrismatis ejus Mysterio consecratis.

This Author wrote well enough for his time; His Discourse is plain, and Natural, without being base and childish, He unfolds the Mysteries of our Religion with much Elegancy; He proves them very solidly; He discovers the Opinions of the Hereticks with great Sagacity, and confutes them very subtly, forcing them out of their strong holds. He had read the Writings of the Fathers, but knew little of the Ecclesiastical History; and therefore for want of an exact knowledge of it he hath committed several mistakes.

The five Books against Eutyches bearing the Name of Vigilius, have always been Printed under his Name both in the Collections, which have been made of those who have opposed the Here∣ticks, and in the Orthodoxographers, and Bibliothecae Patrum; but they are very unfitly attribu∣ted to Vigilius Bishop of Trent. They have also been printed by themselves at Basil, in 1539. Cassander hath caused them to be Printed since at Collen [in 1575, 8vo.] with the Dialogues a∣gainst Arius; which he restored first of all to this Author; And lastly, Josias Simlorus had them Printed again [at Basil, in 1571.] with some other Treatises against the Eurychians.

The twelve Books of the Trinity have been Printed among the Works of St. Athanasius, whose Name they bear [at Heidelburg, in 1601. * 1.277 but they were soon known to belong to a Latin Au∣thor. F. Sirmondus having found them in a MS. of the Abby of St. Flurii (which is now in the Library of the Jesuits Colledge) after the five Books of Vigilius against Eutyches, and his Dispute against Arius, as being the same Authors, hath observed in his Notes upon Theodulphus, [Printed with that Author at Paris in 1646, 8vo.] that this Author, and Hincmarus have been quoted un∣der the Name of Athanasius. Yet they were Vigilius's of Tapsus. His Judgment hath been fol∣lowed by all the Learned, and is confirmed by the Authority of several MSS. where they are joyned with the Conference against Arius, and by the Testimony of the Preface of the Books a∣gainst Varimadus, where the Author alludes to these two Books. F. Chiffletius hath also restored the Treatise of the Trinity against Faelicianus, attributed to St. Austin to him, because he found them in the MSS, with the Works of Vigilius, and they are of the same style. The three Books against Varimadus bear the name of Idacius; but Vigilius discovers himself to be the Author of it in the second Book of his Conferences against Arius.

Lastly, F. Chiffletius attributes to him a Treatise of F. against Palladius, which is Printed in St. Ambrose, and among the Works of St. Gregory Nazianzen's; but he doth not sufficiently prove, that this Work is Vigilius's of Thapsus.

The same Author is of Opinion, That the Acts of the Council of Aquileia are also the inven∣tion of Vigilius of Thapsus; but in that he is mistaken, as we have already shewn. Yet the Creed which is attributed to Athanasius, may with much more Reason be attributed to Vigilius. [The above-mentioned Works of Vigilius of Thapsus have been Collected into one Volume, by F. Chif∣fletius, and Printed with his Notes at Dijon, in 1664. 4to, and have been since put into the Bi∣bliotheca Patrum. Tom. 8. p. 722.]

FAELIX III. Bishop of Rome.

CAelius Faelix was ordained Bishop of Rome in the beginnning of the Year 483. A little time after his Ordination he held a Council at Rome, in which John Talaia, who being * 1.278 banished from Alexandria, by the Authority of Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, was fled into the West, presented a Petition to him, in which were contained several heads of accusation against Acacius. This obliged Faelix to send to the Emperor, Vitalis Bishop of Trent, and Misenus Bishop of Cumae to request him to cause the Council of Chalcedon to be Confirmed, to Banish Petrus the Heretick from the See of Alexandria, and compel Acacius to condemn Peter, and to answer to the things of which he was accused. Faelix gave two Letters to his Legats, the one directed to Acacius, the other to the Emperor. In both of them he is very urgent to have Peter expelled from Alexandria. In the Letter to Acacius, he earnestly exhorts that Bishop to free him∣self from the suspicions which might be had against him; and to use his Interest with the Empe∣ror to bring them to an end, and upbraids him for want of Zeal in this Affair, and his dissimula∣tion or allowance given to this Heretick. In the Letter to the Emperor, he boldly tells him, that he ought not to suffer an Heretick condemned a long time since, and banished by his own Edicts, to remain in possession of the See of Alexandria. Vitalis, and Misenus parted with these Letters and Instructions. While they were in their Voyage, Cyrill Abbot of the * 1.279 Acaemetae wrote to Faelix, that there were daily Innovations against the Orthodox Faith; and that he ought to be so much the quicker in providing some remedy against them. Faelix having received this News wrote to his Legats, that they should do nothing without the advice and approbation of this Cyrill, and sent them a Letter Subscribed to the Emperor, wherein he tells him of the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and writes to him about the Persecution of the Orthodox in Africa. We have neither of the Letters, which Evagrius mentions. The Legats being arrived at Abydos a 1.280 were seized by the Guards, who took away their Papers, and put them into Prison. They had orders not to communicate with the Adherents of Petrus Mongus, nor Acacius, who was joyned with him: But the Emperor first made use of threatnings to force them to it, but not prevailing that way, he tryed them by Kindness and Promises, and gained their Consent to communicate with Petrus Mongus and Acacius, upon Condition nevertheless, that it should be no prejudice to the Merits of the Cause, which they entirely referred to the Judgment of Holy See. Upon this Promise they received the Sacrament with Acacius, and with the Deputies of P. Mongus. The more Zealous of the Orthodox immediately made Protestations against the Action; One they fastened upon the Cloaths of the Legats with an Hook, the other they sent them in a Book; and a third in a Bas∣ket of Herbs. Vitalis and Mesenus having sped so ill, departed to go again into Italy. But they had with them an Advocate of Rome named Faelix, who was forced to stay behind, being taken Sick at Constantinople. This Man, because he would not conform to the Example of the Legats, was cruelly handled by Acacius. Vitalis and Misenus being returned to Rome, found, that the Acaemetae Monks had already given a Relation of what had passed, and had likewise sent one of their Monks called Simeon, to give the Pope an Account of it. Faelix called a Council of Sixty Seven Bishops, where they appeared to give an account of their Embassage; and brought the Let∣ters of Zeno and Acacius full of Invectives against John Talaia, and the Praises of Peter. They laboured to excuse themselves, by saying, that they had forced them and surprized them, and they knew not that they had Communicated with Peter Bishop of Alexandria. But Simeon proved it to their Faces, that they knew what they did, and that they never would harken to the Or∣thodox, which came to them. Silvanus, who had been at Constantinople with them, confirmed the Deposition of Simeon; Insomuch, that Vitalis and Misenus being Convicted of acting contrary to the Orders they had received, were Deposed and Excommunicated. They next Examined the Conduct of Acacius, and Condemned him with Petrus Mongus. This Judgment was passed July 28. Anno. 484.

Faelix gave Notice of this Sentence to Acacius, by his 6th Letter, wherein he tells him, that being found guilty of divers Crimes, of breaking the Canons of the Council of Nice, of Usur∣ping the Jurisdiction of those Provinces that were not subject to him, of having not only recei∣ved into his Communion, but also preferred to the Episcopal Dignity, Hereticks, whom he had heretofore condemned, such as that John, whom he made Bishop of Tyre, although he was not received at Apemaea by the Orthodox, and has been since expelled out of Antioch; such was also the Deacon Numerius, who was Deposed, whom yet he raised to the dignity of the Priesthood. Besides this, he stood Convicted of having placed Petrus Mongus upon the Throne of St. Mark, and received him into his Communion; of having corrupted Vitalis and Misenus to gain their con∣sent to what he desired, instead of obeying and following the Commands, which they had been

injoyned on the part of the Holy See; and by refusing to answer to the heads of the accusation, which John had drawn up against him, he seemed to acknowledge them; That he had since contemned the Deacon Faelix, and Communicated with the Hereticks, and that he did persist in it; so that he did not deserve to be ranked among those that he received to his Communion, and that by this Sentence he declared him to be deprived of his Priesthood, and the Communion of the Catholick Church, faln from the Rights of the Priestly Office, Condemned by the Judgment of Holy Spirit and his Apostolick Authority, and bound for ever with Cords of an Anathema. Nunquam{que} Anathematis Vinculis exuendus. Besides this Letter, there is a kind of a short Decla∣ration against Acacius, in which Faelix declares him deprived of his Priesthood, for having not obeyed the Admonitions of the Holy See, and Imprisoned his Legats; and forbids all Men what∣soever communicating with him, under the Penalty of an Anathema.

He wrote also to the Emperor Zeno the Ninth Letter, in which having complained of the ill Usage that his Legats had met with, he tells him that he had Deposed them, and Deprived them of Communion, for having consented to what Acacius had desired of them. He assures him, that he will never Communicate with Peter, and that he gives him the Liberty to choose the Com∣munion of St. Peter, or Peter Bishop of Alexandria; That he hath also condemned Acacius for being in Communion with Hereticks, and he hoped that the Piety of the Emperor will incline him to suffer the Laws of the Church to be Executed; That he ought to hold this for a certainty, that as God hath entrusted the Sovereignty of things Temporal to Princes, so he hath made the Ministers of the Church Ministers of Spiritual things; and that when the Cause of God is in ••and, the Will of Kings ought to submit to the Ministers of Jesus Christ; that they ought to Learn Holy things of them, and not to meddle with the Office of Teaching others, to follow the Decisions of the Church, and not take upon him to prescribe Laws. This Letter is dated Aug. 1. Anno. 484. Lastly, He lets us know by his 10th Letter to the Clergy, and People of Con∣stantinople, the Judgment passed against Acacius, that they may not too own him for their Bishop, but separate themselves from his Communion.

Tutus the Advocate of the Church of Rome was commanded to carry the Sentence against Aca∣cius, and to declare it to him. He discharged his Commission by fastening it to his Priestly Habit, when he was Celebrating the Holy Mysteries, and by publishing the Declaration made against him; but afterward suffering himself to be corrupted by Maronas he Communicated with Acacius, Faelix having convicted him of it by his own Letter, he put him out of his Advocates Office, and declared him Excommunicated. He signifies it to the Monks of Constantinople by his Eleventh Letter, and advises them to sever from their Communities those who would Commu∣nicate with Acacius; permitting them notwithstanding to receive those, who had been constrain'd to do it by Violence, and did testifie their sorrow for it.

But notwithstanding all the endeavours that Faelix used, his Sentence remained without Exe∣cution, nor did he write again to the Emperor so long as Acacius Lived; but after his Death he thought he had gotten a favourable Opportunity to have his Sentence Executed. Flavitus, who was ordain'd in his place, hoping to be united to the Holy See, wrote to Faelix a Letter, wherein he much extolls the dignity of the See of Rome, and made profession of the Orthodox Faith. The first thing that the Pope did, before he received them to his Communion, was to demand of them whether they Condemned Acacius and Peter. Since they refused to do it, he declared to them, that he would not receive them to Communion, unless they would promise him never to recite the Names of Acacius and Petrus in the Holy Mysteries. The Deputies of Flavitus having an∣swered, That they had no order about that, the Pope resolved to write to Zeno and Flavitus, to obtain of them to grant them what he demanded. The Letters are the 12th and 13th. He did all he could to defend himself against the reproaches, which might be cast on him, by acting in this matter with Authority, Rigour, and Resolution. He assures them, that he carried himself so only to perform his Duty, and do nothing against his own Conscience; He tells them that he desired nothing so much as a Re-union with the Church of Constantinople, and that the two Romes should be at a perfect agreement, but Union could never be obtained by violating the Laws of the Church; That the Council of Chalcedon having condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus, he could not, without contempt of its Authority, receive Timotheus and Petrus, who were of the same Opinions; and that Acacius having received Peter into his Communion after he had him∣self Condemned him, had shewed himself so great a Dissembler, that he deserved the same Punishment; That Peter had manifested no signs of Conversion, but thô he had done it, he ought not to be acknowledged as a Bishop, but only received as a Mere Laick. These are the princi∣pal Matters which Faelix wrote in these two Letters, which are the most Eloquent that ever were Written by any Pope. He had commanded them a little before by his 14th Letter written du∣ring the Vacancy of the See of Constantinople, to Thalassius Abbot of the Monks called Acaemetae at Constantinople, who where entirely Devoted to the Holy See, not to receive the Bishop of Constan∣tinople, nor any other into their Communion, that were not received by the Holy See. 'Twas also certainly in the same Vacancy, that he wrote the 15th Letter to Bishop Vetranio, in which after he hath spoken of the Division of the Church of Constantinople and Rome; and shewed that it was only in Obedience to the Council of Chalcedon, that he hath condemned Acacius, that he might not seem to joyn with the Hereticks as he had done; He desires him to use his utmost interest with the Emperor, to gain his consent, that the Names of Acacius and Petrus might be blotted out

of the Catalogue of Bishops, and by this means the Churches of Constantinople may be re-united. These four Letters are dated in the Year 490.

We have not spoken of the three Letters in Greek and Latin, written about the Affair of Petrus Fullo, who usurped the See of the Church of Antioch, of which two were sent to that pretended Bishop, and the other to the Emperor; being of the Opinion of the Learned M. Valesius, that these three Letters were forged by some Greek, as well as the other Letters written to Petrus Fullo under the Name of several Bishops, and produced, as some pretend, at the Council of Rome held under Foelix in 483, recited in the fourth Tome of the Councils, Pag. 1098, &c. For, 1. All these Letters were written Originally in Greek, and since translated into Latin, as it appears by the Style, which is Barbarous, as well as because there are two different Versions of them. 2. All these Letters are in the same Style, although they were written in the Name of the Bishop of different Countries. 3. They are written in a way unworthy of the Bishops of that time. Those that are attributed to Foelix, differ much from the Letters of that Pope. The Sentence which he pronounces against Petrus Fullo is ridiculous. 4. The Names of the greatest part of the Bishops which write to Petrus Fullo, are unknown; for who ever heard of Faustus of Apollonia, of Pamphilus of Abydos, of Asclepiades of Trall••, of Antheon of Arsinoë, of Quintianus of Ascalon, and Justin of Sicily? Why should these Bishops, of private and inconsiderable Churches, undertake to write to Petrus Fullo? Have we any Examples like it? 5. 'Tis not true, that Petrus Fullo was condemned in a Synod of Constantinople, and another at Rome in 483. He had been so under Pope Simplicius, but since we have nothing spoken of him. He did not begin to re-establish him∣self again till 484. when Calendion was deposed; and therefore 'tis not likely that they would condemn him without Necessity.

I believe also, That the two Forms of Citation to summon Acacius, which are supposed to have been given to Vitalis and Misenus in the Council of Rome held in 483. are a Forgery; for it ap∣pears by the first Letter of Foelix to Acacius, that when he sent Vitalis and Misenus, he had no design of calling Acacius to Rome, and of proceeding against him: He expected only, that he should free himself from the Accusations drawn up against him, by Letter; and he required no∣thing else but that he would do what he could with the Emperor to make him deprive Petrus Mongus, not knowing that he had received him to his Communion.

Lastly, I am perswaded, that the Letter supposed to have been written by the Council of Rome against Acacius to the Clergy, and Monks of Bithynia, is also a supposititious Piece. It hath gi∣ven occasion to M. Valesius to maintain, That there was in that Year two Councils held at Rome against Acacius, and two Excommunications pronounced against that Bishop, the one in a Council of 67 Bishops held July the 28th, and the other in a Synod of 42 Bishops held August the first fol∣lowing. 'Tis true, that so much is intimated in that Letter, but this is the thing that makes it suspected, because these two Condemnations are spoken, of in no place else. Nevertheless, if this second Condemnation were true, Foelix would certainly have mentioned it in those Letters that he wrote afterward against Acacius both in his Life-time, and after his Death: He that with so much Diligence sought out all the Reasons which could be brought against Acacius, would he have for∣gotten the Authority of the second Synod? Would he have passed over this second Condemna∣tion? 'Tis so much the less credible, because it is founded upon a new fault, for having, say they, deposed Calendion, and put Peter Fullo in his place. Would Foelix have neglected to have urged this Reason for the Condemnation of Acacius, being so very plausible an one? Yet he speaks nothing of it in all these Letters. The same Day on which this Council is supposed to be held, Foelix wrote the Sentence, which he would have to be signified to Acacius, wherein he exactly relates all the Reasons of his Condemnation, but speaks nothing at all of this, which would have been one of the principal and strongest. There is therefore no Reason to believe that he was con∣demned upon that account. Besides, what likelihood is there, that there should be two Councils held at Rome in so little a time? Let them not say, that they are two different Sessions of the same Council, for they are under two different Bishops. Lastly, The Ancient Record concerning the Affair of Acacius, which relates exactly all the Circumstances of his Condemnation, speaks of only one, which went before the attempt which he made of putting Petrus Fullo into the See of Constantinople.

We cannot then maintain this Letter written in the Name of the Synod of Rome to the Monks and Clergy of Bithynia, at least as to the second Part; for it is to be taken Notice of, that it hath two Parts. The first is a Relation of the Condemnation of Acacius, as we have already said, which is authorized by Foelix's Letters. The second contains the other Condemnation of Acacius, for having restored Petrus Fullo, which doth not all agree with the History. Nor are either of the Parts in the Style of Pope Foelix, but more especially the last, which is written after an impertinent manner, and contains the forbid Praises of Pope Foelix, calling him Caput nostrum, Papa & Archiepiscopus; Our Head, Pope, and Archbishop; Terms, which were never used in that Age. In an ancient MS. this Letter is dated Octob. 485. This date is evidently false, for 'tis said, That he sent this Sentence by Tutus the Advocate. Now the Voyage of Tutus was in 484. He had not that Title in 485. I spare to mention a great number of places in that Letter, which are such pitiful stuff, that it is impossible to believe that it is a Work written at that time.

But the like cannot be said of Foelix's seventh Letter, concerning those who have been Re-baptized by the Arians. In the ordinary Inscriptions it is directed to all Bishops: But I believe

that we ought to follow the MS of Justellus, where it is directed to the Bishops of Sicily. In this Letter he orders what the Penance of those Persons shall be, who have suffered themselves to be Baptized by the Arians. 1. He observes, that there is a great deal of difference between such as were forced to do it, and those that have done it voluntarily. 2. He asserts, That all those who have been Baptized, ought to do Penance, and submit themselves to Fasting, Tears, and other Acts of Penance. 3. That the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who have been Re-baptized, ought to undergo Penance as long as they live, be de•…•… the Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and be excluded the Prayers even of the Catechumens themselves; and that all the favour that can be granted them, is to receive them into Lay-Communion at the point of Death. 4. He imposes upon the other Clergy, Monks, and Virgins devoted to God, who have also suffered themselves to be Re-baptized, twelve Years Penance, three among the Hearers, seven among the Penitents, and two among the Consistents, upon Condition nevertheless, that if they happen to be in dan∣ger of Death, they shall be relieved either by the Bishop, who imposed the Penance, or by some other Bishop, or by a Priest. 5. He ordains, That as to those young Children, whom their Age may excuse, it shall suffice to keep them some time subject to the Imposition of Hands without enjoyning them Penance. 6. He ordains no more than a three Years. Penance for the Clergy, Monks and Lay-Men, who have been Re-baptized by force or subtilty, not having consented to it: But he lays it down as a General Rule, That none of those who have been Baptized; or Re-baptized by Hereticks, should be admitted to Sacred Orders. Lastly, He forbids the Bishops and Priests to receive to Communion the Clergy, or mere Laicks of another Diocess, or Parish, unless they have the Testimonial Letters from their Bishop or Priest. This Letter is dated March 15. Anno 488. We have nothing to observe about the eighth Letter to Zeno Bishop of Sivil, which is nothing but a Recommendation of a certain Person called Terintianus, who had told him of the Welfare of that Bishop. The Letters of this Pope are written in a noble, cogent, and plea∣sant Style.

The Author of the Memoir concerning the Affair of ACACIUS.

THIS Memoir was composed two Years after the Condemnation of Acacius by Foelix; that is to say, in 486. It contains an Abridgment of what passed in the Cause of * 1.281 Acacius, from his Condemnation to Acacius's. The things related in it are done very exactly, and in few Words. It discovers a great number of particular Circumstances, which we can find no where else: We may there see the Troubles with which the Church was vexed for 40 Years together, and the frequent Revolutions which happened to the great Sees of the Ea∣stern Churches, and many other accidents, which it would have been hard to have picked up, if we had not an Author of that time, who hath related them distinctly. It is not certainly known, who composed this Memoir. F. Sirmondus found it in a MS. with S. Leo's Letters. It was with∣out all doubt composed by the Order of this Pope.

GELASIUS I.

GElasius † 1.282 was Ordained Bishop of Rome in the * 1.283 beginning of the Year 492. and Governed that Church four Years, eight Months, and some Days. Some time after his Ordina∣tion, * 1.284 Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople wrote a Letter to him, in which he com∣plains that he had not sent him a Letter of Communion according to the Ancient Custom: And ha∣ving assured him, That he held the Orthodox Faith, he prayed him to conform himself to the Eastern Churches. Gelasius returned this Answer thereupon, That it was true, that it was the ancient Cu∣stom of the Holy See, that as soon as any Person was Ordained Bishop of Rome, he imparted his Ele∣ction to his Collegues by Letters of Communion; but he dare not give that Mark of Union to such Persons, as preferred Communion with Hereticks before that of the Holy See. That the Letter which he now writes to him, ought not to be taken as a Mark of Communion, but only as an Effect of that general Charity, which Christianity obliges us to have for all the World. As to the Conformity, which he desires of him, he could not yield to it, without departing from the Truth. That as for those who have been Baptized, and Ordained by Acacius, he allows them to act in that manner, which Euphemius hath prescribed in his Letter, but he cannot consent to their putting Acacius's Name among those, who are in Communion with the Church. That though that Bishop never Espoused any Heretical Opinions, yet he hath rendered himself blame-worthy

by receiving Hereticks into his Communion: That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 having been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, Timotheus and Petrus, who were of the ••••me Judgment with that Heretick, ought to be looked upon as subject to the same Co•…•…, as also all those that are united with them, so that it is not sufficient for Euphe•…•… to con•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and to declare himself Orthodox, unless be condemn them, who are of the same Sentiments, or co••••••unicate with them: That without this he can never come to a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Reconciliation with him. Euphemius had told him in his Letter. That he was very ready to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him in this Matter, but he could not do it without offending the People of Constantinople, and therefore desired him to send such Persons as he thought best of. Whereupon Gelasius answers him, That it is the Peoples Duty to follow their Pastor, and the Pastor's to Govern his People; and if his Flock 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not his Voice, It will give less heed to another Pastor, whom it suspects. Lastly, He cites him before the Tribunal of Jesus Christ, where he says it will be known, whether he be in the fault, or no, in so acting. This is the Sum of Gelasius's first Letter.

The second is a Circular Letter to the Bishop of Illyria, which contains a Profession, or Decla∣ration of his Doctrine, wherein he condemns the Errors of the Eutychians, and establisheth the Distinction of the two Natures. He also tells them, How joyful he was to see them follow the Sentence passed against Acacius by his Predecessor, and pronounce Anathema against that Bishop.

The third is another Circular Letter to the Bishop of Dardania, in which he exhorts them to condemn the Eutychians, and all that communicate with them. They satisfie him in their answer, which goes before this Letter.

In the fourth Letter directed to Faustus, the Ambassador of Theodoricus at Constantinople, he com∣plains of the Obstinacy of the Greeks in the business of Acacius; and because they desired him to pardon him, he says, That he could not pardon a Man who died out of the Communion of the Church; nor absolve him from his Excommunication after his Death, because he had no Precedent for such an Acti∣on. And whereas Euphemius had said, That Acacius could not be condemned by the Bishop of Rome only; he answers, That having been condemned by the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and his Predecessor having done no more but put the Decree of that Council in Execution, he could not disallow of his Condemnation, because it was not only permitted to the Bishop of the Holy Apostolick See, but also to all Bishops, to withdraw themselves from their Communion, who embrace an Heresie con∣demned by the Church: That it is to no purpose to object the Canons, since the very Canons themselves re∣fer the Examinations of the Appeals of all Churches to the Holy See, so that there can be no Appeal from his Judgment: That Timotheus, Peter of Antioch, Paul, and several other Bishops, had been con∣demned by the Authority of the Holy See only, with the Approbation of Acacius himself, who executed the Sentences against them. Lastly, He accuses the Greeks, who alledged the Canons in defence of their Carriage of breaking the Canons; and maintains, That Acacius hath transgressed them in many Particulars.

The fifth Letter to Honorius a Bishop in Dalmatia, was written by Gelasius, about the News which he had heard, That the Heresie of Pelagius was sprung up again in Dalmatia. He exhorts that Bishop to oppose it vigorously. This Admonition much surprized him, and he could not but discover it to the Pope, who answers him in his sixth Letter, That he ought not to find fault with his Pastoral Care and Vigilance.

The seventh Letter is directed to the Bishop of Picenum. Gelasius wrote it against an * 1.285 Old Man, who revived the Errors of Pelagius, by teaching, That there was no Original Sin: That Chil∣dren that die Unbaptized, are not damned: And that Man may be happy, avoid Sin, and do good without Grace, which is bestowed on him for his Merits sake. Gelasius having confuted these Errors at large, accuseth this Priest also for permitting the Monks to dwell with the Consecrated Virgins, and much condemns him for it. For, saith he, if the Mind of those, who have no converse with Wo∣men, is often troubled with unclean thoughts, what a deep Impression will the presence of Women make upon the Minds of them, who see them continually? Wherefore he forbids this abuse, and threatens to punish those, who shall hereafter tolerate it. This Letter is dated Nov. 1. 493.

The eighth Letter of Gelasius is addressed to the Emperour * 1.286 Anastasius. After he hath excused himself for not writing to him before, and declared what Zeal and Affection he hath to serve him, he exhorts him to follow the Judgment of the Holy See, by causing the Memory of Acacius to be condemned. In this Letter there are many other things remarkable, but nothing more than what he says concerning the Distinction between the Priesthood and the Royal Authority. There are two sorts of Power, saith he, which exercise a Sovereignty over all the World, the Sacred Authority of the Bishops, and the Authority of Kings. The Charge of Bishops is so much the greater, because they must give an Account at the Day of Judgment of the Actions of Kings. You know, Sir, that although you are Supreme, and your Dignity excels all others; yet you are obliged to submit your selves to the Au∣thority of those that Minister about Holy Things: That you require of them the Principles of your Salva∣tion, and ought to follow the Rules, which they prescribe for the receiving of the Sacraments, and dispo∣sing Ecclesiastical Matters. For if the Bishops being perswaded, that God hath given you a Sovereign Power over Things Temporal, yield Obedience to your Civil Laws, without opposing your Power in Temporal Matters; with how great Reverence ought you to be subject in Spiritual Things to those, who are set apart for the Distribution of the Holy Sacraments? And if all the Faithful ought to submit themselves in general to all the Bishops, which discharge their Office well; with how much greater Reason ought they to yield to the Bishop of the Holy See, whom God hath made the * 1.287 First among the Bishops, and the Church hath always acknowledged him for such?

The ninth Letter to the Bishop of Lucania, Samnium and Sicily, contains many necessary Rules for the Ministers of the Church The Wars and Troubles of Italy had brought the Churches of that Country to such a miserable Condition, that many of them had no Ministers in so much that they were forced to pass by the ordinary Forms, and dispense with the strict Observation of the Canons: But lest they should abuse this Indulgence, Gelasius gives them these following Rules.

I. He orders them to observe the Ancient Canons, unless some urgent necess••••y oblige the Churches to dispense with them. He allows them to confer Holy Orders upon the Monks pro∣vided there be no Canonical Impediment in them, viz. That they have not heretofore been guilty of any Enormous Crimes; Have not been twice Married, nor have Married a Widow; That they have no bodily defects; be not Servants nor engaged in any publick or private Office, if they have some Learning, without which they cannot obtain the degree of a Porter. And if any of the Monks have all these Qualifications, he may be immediately made a Reader, Notary, or Advocate, and three Months after an Acolythus, especially if he be of full Age: After the end of six Months he may be Ordain'd a Sub-Deacon; and if he behaves himself well and prudently, and leads a good Life, he shall be made a Deacon at the end of nine Months, and a Priest at the end of the Year.

II. Gelasius tells them, That if they admit a Lay-Man into the Clergy, they must examine him so much the more in the above-mentioned Particulars; and more especially concerning his Life and Manners, left under the pretence of the Necessity, which they have of Ministers, they fill the Clergy with vicious Persons. To be the better assured of their Carriage, he requires them to wait six Months after the Year is out, before they be Ordain'd Priests. But because this space of 18 Months was not sufficient, according to the ancient Canons, Gelasius. declares, That he shortened the time for the sake of those Churches that wanted Ministers; but in others, and in these very Churches, when a sufficient Number of Clerks shall be again established, the an∣cient Canons shall be observed in the greatest strictness.

III. He forbids the Bishop to Consecrate Churches new-built without necessary Abilities, and not to meddle with the Clergy of their Collegues.

IV. He forbids them to exact any thing for Baptism, or Confirmation; or to demand any thing of such as are newly Baptized.

V. He commands the Priests not to raise themselves above their Order, nor to undertake to make the Chrism, nor Confirm, nor Bless, nor perform any other Sacred Office in the Presence of the Bishop, nor to sit down by him, nor to Officiate before him without his permission. He puts them in mind, That they have no Power to Ordain a Sub-Deacon, or an Acolythus, without a Bishop.

VI. He enjoyns the Deacons to keep themselves within the Bounds of their Ministry, forbid∣ding them to perform any Offices that belong to the Priests, or to Baptize, unless in case of ne∣cessity, without a Priest, or Bishop. He adds in the

VII Rule, That they ought not to rank themselves with the Priests, nor distribute the Body of Jesus Christ in the Presence of the Bishops or Priests.

Having thus recommended the exact Observation of the Canons, he forbids them Baptizing at any other time but at Easter and Pentecost, unless the Person to be Baptized be in danger of Death. He also forbids them to Ordain any, unless in the Ember-Weeks, Mid-Lent, Holy Saturday in the Evening; and he thinks, that no case can oblige them to Ordain a Priest or Deacon at any other times. As to the Virgins he says, That they ought not to be Consecrated, and Vailed; but on the Epiphany, Easter, or on the Feast of the Apostles. He forbids them Consecrating a Widow. He will not allow them to Ordain, or admit into their Monasteries a Slave, or any Person that lives in a servile Condition. He forbids Clergymen to follow Trades, or use any scandalous Employments. Afterwards he repeats the ancient Canons concerning the Qualificati∣ons of such Persons, as they ought to Ordain. They ought to be Learned, have no bodily de∣fects, not be Eunuchs, nor guilty of any Crimes; to be of a sound Mind, to be but once Mar∣ryed. He sentences them who have been Ordain'd for Money to be put out of the Clergy. He orders them to endure Penance all their Lives, who have corrupted a consecrated Virgin; and only allows them to receive Absolution at the point of Death, if they have done Penance. He threatens those Clergymen who go from one Church to another. As for those Widows, who Marry after they have vowed a single Life, he doth not impose publick Penance upon them, but he thinks it sufficient to admonish them of the fault that they have committed. He complains of them, who have consecrated Churches without the allowance of the Holy See, and have given them the Name of such Persons as died not in the Faith. Lastly, He is much displeased that Wo∣men Ministred at the Altar in some places.

Having spoken after this manner of the Degrees of the Clergy, and of their Duties, he treats of the Revenues of the Church. He will have them divided into four parts; whereof one is for the Bishop; the other for the Clergy; the third for the Poor; and the fourth for the Build∣ings. He adds, That the Bishop ought not to diminish the Clergies part, nor the Clergy the Bi∣shops, and that the Bishop ought to employ that part faithfully, which is set apart for the Build∣ings of the Church without converting it to his own Advantage; but he must make it appear,

what use be makes of it. And as to that part, which is allotted the Poor, although ••e must one Day give an account to God, yet he ought also to give proof of his faithful Management of it. G•…•… concludes with an •…•…ction to all the Clergy to give him Intelligence of those, who shall do contrary to these Rules. This Letter bea•••• date March 10. Anno 494.

The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Letter to the Bishops of Sicily is dated in March of the same Year. He speaks there∣in of the Use the Bishops ought to make of their Revenues for the relief of the Poor, and main∣tenance of Ministers: And adds, That the Goods, of which the Churches have been in possession for 30 Years past, do belong to them according to the Civil Laws, and are looked upon as the Revenues of the Church.

The 11th Letter to the Bishops of Dardania and •…•…a, is about the business of Acacius. He commends their Zeal which they had shewn in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 part with the Holy See, and not imitating the Bishop of Thessalonica, who sided with the Bishop of Constantinople, and would not condemn Acacius. He declares him to be separated from the Communion of the Church of Rome; and maintains, That Acacius being dead out of that Communion, cannot be absolved after his Death. It is dated Aug. 2. 494.

The following Letter to the Bishop of Arles, is a Letter of Communion, by which Gelasius ac∣quaints him with his Preferment to the Holy See; and tells him, That he desires to live in the United Communion of the Bishops of France. The date of this Letter is Aug. 19. Anno 494.

The 13th Letter ditected to the Bishops of Dardania, is a kind of Manifesto; in which Ge∣la•…•… proves, That Acacius hath been lawfully and judicially condemned by the Holy See. His principal Reason is this, That the Bishop of Rome hath done nothing but executed the Decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which principally belongs to the Holy See. That there was no need of a new Synod, since the Matter having been already determined, Acacius hath condemned him∣self by joyning himself to Persons condemned. In the next place he relates the business of Aca∣cius, after what manner the Holy See having discovered, that he favoured Petrus Mongus, had admonished him several times of it, but he had never given any satisfaction to it: That having been accused by John Bishop of Alexandria, Bishop of the second See, and cited before the first See of the World, he would neither appear himself, nor send any other Person to appear for him; How he had likewise corrupted the Legats of the Holy See, and persisted to communicate with Hereticks: That having written to the Holy See against John, he would not condescend to ac∣cuse him judicially there: That he, who was Bishop of a small See, had refused to do that which he saw the Bishop of the second See to do: That after this refusal, the Holy See by executing the Council of Chalcodon, had condemned him: That Timotheus, Aelurus, and Petrus Mongus, had been condemned in the same manner by the Judgment of the Holy See only: That the Holy Church of Rome hath right to judge all others, since the Canons allow Appeals to his Judgment from all parts of the World: That after this Judgment he neither had, nor could be absolved by any Synod: That the Holy See can absolve such Persons as have been condemned by the Synods, as it absol∣ved heretofore St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, and lately Flavian: That on the contrary it had condemned Dioscorus, and rejected his Synod: That there are good and bad Councils: That an unlawful Council is that, which doth any thing contrary to Holy Scripture, the Doctrine of the Fathers, and the Decrees of the Church; and which the whole Church, and chiefly the Holy See, doth not approve; And a lawful Synod is that which judgeth according to Scripture, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Ecclesiastical Laws which all the Church receiveth, and the Holy See approveth: That a Synod of this sort cannot be found fault with; And such was the Council of Chalcedon which condemneth Eutyches and his Followers: That all those that approve the Doctrine of this Heretick, or communicate with those that approve him, although they be Bi∣shops assembled in a Synod, are involved in the same Condemnation: That there is no need of another Synod to condemn them, 'tis enough to put the Council of Chalcedon in Execution, which is all the Holy See hath done in this Affair: That Acacius had done well in other Matters, but had thrust out John the Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, and put into his place, which he had made void by his own Authority, Petrus Mongus an Heretick, whom he himself had condemned; that he also deprived Calendion Bishop of the third See, to put in his place Petrus Fullo a notorious He∣retick: That he had not called a Synod to do these things, nor to remove such Orthodox Bishops: That he had arrogated to himself such Prerogatives as did not belong to him: That he could not say, That he was forced by the Emperor to do these things, since he had stoutly resisted the Em∣perors Basiliscus and Zeno upon other occasions: That this last did boast that he did nothing in all this Affair without the Council of Acacius: That it was certain, that Acacius did not endeavour to hinder the Emperor from troubling the Orthodox, as he was obliged: That he ought not to ex∣alt himself the more because he was Bishop of the Royal City, because that doth not give a Sove∣reign Title, since there were several other Cities, which were Imperial Seats, as Ravenna, * 1.288 Mi∣lan, Sermium, which had not for all that any such Prerogatives: That the Church of Constantinople was not to compare with those of Alexandria and Antioch, because not only it was not a Patriar∣chal See, but because it had not the Dignity of a Metropolis: That the presence of the Emperor, and the Prae-eminency of the City, ought not to impart any Ecclesiastical Dignity to him: That the Emperor Marcian, who had done his utmost to procure him such Prerogatives as were not due to him, had himself acknowledged, that St. Leo had reason to oppose it: That Anatolius, who endeavoured to enlarge his Rights, was forced to abandon them: That although it were the Em∣peror,

who had deprived John of Alexandria and Calendion, Acacius ought to have opposed 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and not stir him up against them: That although it were true, that the first had blotted out the Name of the Emperor, and the other had told him a Lye, yet he ought not to deprive them before they were convicted, and condemned by a Synod. These are some of the Reasons which Gelasius propounds in this Manifesto.

The 14th Letter is a Fragment of another Memoir; containing the Acts which might serve to justifie the Condemnation of Acacius. We have still a Letter of Simplicius to Acacius, wherein this Pope advises him not to suffer P. Mongus to be received into Communion, before he hath done Penance; and then, to admit him only into the rank of Lay-men: As also a Fragment of a Let∣ter of Pope Foelix to the Emperor Zeno, against the same Mongus; a Letter of Acacius against Tim. Ae••••rus, and P. Mongus, with some Reflexions of Gelasius upon this Last piece.

The 15th is a Manifesto to the Eastern Bishops, which contains almost the same things with the 13th Letter.

The Letters taken out of the Collection of Canons of Cardinal Deus-dedit are Commissions a∣bout different Affairs. The First, for the Ordination of a Priest in a New Parish. The Se∣cond, for the Ordination of a Deacon. The Third, is about the affair of those Clergy-men of Nola, who were disobedient to their Bishop, who had been sent to the Pope by Theodoricus. The Fourth, is for the Restauration of the Worship of God in a Church, where it had been disconti∣nued, because there were no Revenues. The Fifth, is a Commission to inspect the ill Manage∣ment of a Bishop, who was accused of converting the Goods of the Church to his own use. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is to enquire into the Murther of a Christian Slave, and into an Insolence offered to a Bishop. The Seventh, is an Order to seperate such Persons from Communion, as have wronged the Church. The Eighth is an Injunction to a Bishop to restore a Chalice which his Predecessor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 taken from another Church. The Ninth i•• against those Bishops, which encroach upon the Jurisdiction of their Brethren. This imports; that the Metropolitan shall ordain all the Bishops of his Province; and that the Bishops of the Province shall ordain the Metropolitan.

The Last contains an Abrictgment of some of the Rules laid down in the 13th. To these Letters may be joyned the Letter to Rusticus [Lugdunensis] Published in F. Dacherius in Tom. V of his Specile∣gi•…•…. In which he thanks that Bishop of Lyons for his assistance, and relates how much trouble he had in the business of Acacius; but this Letter doth not seem to me to be Gelasius's Style.

But Pope Gelasius hath not only written Letters, but also hath composed some small Treatises. We have already observed that several of these Letters may pass for Works, Memoirs, or Ma∣nifesto's. Of this Nature is his Treatise De Anathematis Vin••••lo. He begins it with an Answer to the Objection of those, who complained, that he urged the Authority of the Council of Chalce∣don in the business of Acacius too much; but would not consent to the Privileges which the Coun∣cil had granted to the Bishop of Constantinople. He answers, that all the Church embraced such definitions of this Council as were consonant to Holy Scripture, to the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, and the Decrees of the Church concerning the Orthodox Truth, and the Common Faith of all the Church. But as to other things therein treated of, which the Holy See gave no Person Commission to meddle with, to which the Legats of the Holy See oppose themselves, and which the Holy See never would approve of; which Anatolius himself had abandoned, by referring them to the Approbation of the Holy See; and which are contrary to the Privileges of the Universal Church, he never would in any wise defend them.

After this he discourses of Excommunication and Absolution. He acknowledges that all Sin∣ners may be absolved in this Life if they do Repent, and althô it be said in the Sentence given against Acacius, that he shall never be loosed from the Curse pronounced against him, this ought not to be understood, but in case he do not Repent; for if that be done in this Life, he may be Pardoned; but if he go on, and Die in that estate, he cannot be Absolved. That the Judgment of Absolution, which the Emperor had caused to be pronounced in favour of Peter of Alexandria, was void, being done by his own Authority contrary to the Canons of the Church, and without the Consent of the Bishop of the Holy See, by whose authority he had been Condemned,

The second Treatise of Gelasius is a Discourse against Andromachus a Roman Senator, and * 1.289 other Persons, who endeavoured to restore the Lupercalia at Rome, which were at that time ut∣terly Abolished, Superstitiously believing that the Diseases, with which the City was then affli∣cted, proceeded from the neglect of those Sacrifices. This Pope smartly reproves those who were of this Opinion, and proves, they are unworthy of the Name and Profession of Christians; That they commit a Spiritual Adultery, and fall into a kind of Idolatry, which deserves a separation from the Body of Christ, and severe Penance. In sum, That their Opinion was a foolish and groundless Imagination, because the Lupercalia were not appointed to avert Diseases, but to make Women Fruitful, as T. Luvius relates in the second Decad of his History; That the Plague, and other Distempers were as Common, when the Lupercalia were Celebrated, as they are now; and if Rome be afflicted with Diseases, the Plague, Barrenness, &c. it ought to be imputed to the corrupt and disorderly manners of the Inhabitants; That if the Lupercalia have any thing Divine, they ought to be Celebrated with the same Ceremonies, and in the same manner that they were heretofore; and what Man is there that will be guilty of such shameless Impudence? That they were a Remnant of Paganism, which was the reason that they were Abolished; and thô indeed they remained in use a long time under the Christian Emperors; yet it doth not follow from

thence, that they ought always to be preserved, for all Superstitions could not be abolished at once, but by little and little. Lastly, He tells them, that a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christian cannot, nor ought to do it. And althô his Predecessors did tolerate it, they had some reasons which hindered them from abolishing them, but yet he doubts not but that they did endeavour it.

The third Treatise was composed * 1.290 against this Doctrine of the Pelagians, that Men may pass their Life without Sin. He proves the contrary by several Reasons grounded upon the Testimo∣nies of Holy Scripture. In it also he explains, in what sense St. Paul says, That the Children of the Faithful are Holy, and the believing Wife sanctifieth the unbelieving Husband.

But the most eminent Treatise of Gelasius is his Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius [con∣cerning the two Natures in Jesus Christ.] The Criticks at first doubted whether it belonged to this Pope, and * 1.291 Baronius affirms it with greater Confidence than any, that it is not his, but Gela∣sius Cyzicenus's, and Bellarmine followeth his Judgment. The Conjectures which they bring, seem to have some resemblance of truth, if we consider them alone. They are as follows, 1. The Author of this Treatise quotes the Greek Fathers only, and never mentions the Latins; now what probability is there, that Pope Gelasius would not alledge St. Jerom, St. Ambrose, St. Austin, and St. Leo. 2. He numbers Eusebius Caesariensis among the Orthodox Doctors. Now Gelasius thought him an Arian, and puts his Books among the Apocryphal. 3. The Treatise of Gelasius against Eutyches was a large Work, according to the testimony of Gennadius; this that we have is a small Tract. These Reasons seem to prove, that 'tis not probable, that it is Pope Gelasius's. On the other hand, there are no Objections against Gelasius Cyzicenus, all things concur to attri∣bute it to him, for the time and name agree; there is no other Gelasius to whom it can be attri∣buted, the Style of this Book is very like that of the History of the Council of Nice, written by Gelasius Cyzicenus. Lastly, The Author of that History says, in the Preface, that he hath written against the Eutychians, and commends Eusebius in the Body of his Work. All this makes it suffi∣ciently evident, that this Work belongs to Gelasius Cyzicenus, rather than Gelasius Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless there want not convincing proofs, to evince, that it is really the Work of this Latter. For first, It is found in the MSS. joyned with the Letters of this Pope. Second, St. Fulgentius, who is a Witness beyond exception, cites it as Pope Gelasius's [Lib. de 5. quest. apud Ferrand. Diac. c. 18.] and John II. uses the Testimony of this Author, as Pope Gelasius's [in Epist. ad Avie••••m.] Thirdly, Gennasius * 1.292 assures us, that this Pope made a large Treatise against Eutyches and Nestori∣us. This agrees to this Book, which bears the same Title, and is very considerable; for thô it be not a great Work in it self, 'tis a great Volume in Gennadius's sense. We ought not to won∣der, that he doth not quote the Latin Authors, being engaged with the Greeks, against whom he might very well use the Authority of Eusebius Caesariensis. Lastly, The Style of this Treatise de∣monstrates plainly, that it is Pope Gelasius's. In it he shews, that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, united in one Person, and that these two Natures have retain'd their Properties. This truth is proved in the first part by the Authority of Holy Scripture, and in the second by the Testimonies of the Greek Fathers. About the end of the first part we meet with a passage about the Eucharist, exactly like Theodoret's [This Treatise hath been Printed at Basil in 1528, in Antidoto adversus Haereses, and at Tigur. 1571. 'Tis also extant in Biblioth. Pat. Tom. 8. p. 699.]

This Pope had made also some other Treatises upon different subjects, and some Hymns in imitation of St. Ambrose, of which Gennadius makes mention; but we have no more of his than the Works above-mentioned.

Besides these Works, which are his alone, the Decree concerning the Apocryphal and Canoni∣cal Books composed, or rather approved by a Council of 70 Bishops, held at Rome in 494, may also be attributed to him, for indeed * 1.293 'tis the Work of Gelasius. This Decree contains first of all a Catalogue of such Books, as the Church of Rome acknowledges to be Canonical both in the O. and N. Testament, like to the Decree of the Council of Trent, save that he reckons but one Book of the Macchabees. Next he establisheth the Authority of the Church of Rome, and its Primacy, which according to him was not before confirmed ••y any Syno∣dical Decree, but only by the words of Jesus Christ to Saint Peter, to whom St. Paul was joyned, and with whom he suffered Martyrdom under Nero; in∣somuch, that these two Apostles have Consecrated the Church of Rome, and by their Presence and Martyrdom given it a pre-eminence above all other Churches. So that the first See of the Churches of the World is Rome, and the second Alexandria, the third Antioch, where St. Peter abode before he came to Rome.

After this Declaration comes a Catalogue of the Councils, and the Books which are received by the Church of Rome, viz. The four first General Councils, and other Sy∣nods received, and authorized in the Church. The Works of St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Nazianzene, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. John of Constantinople, St. Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Austin, St. Jerom, St. Prosper, the Letter of St. Leo to Flavian, and all the Treatises of the Orthodox Fathers that dyed in the Communion of the Church, and the Decretals of the Popes. As for the Acts of the Martyrs he observes, that although he did not doubt of the truth of them, nevertheless the Church of Rome doth not read them, because the Authors of them are not known, and there are some of them forged by the ignorant Men and

Infidels, and others full of falshood, such as are the Acts of St. Quiritius, St. Julitta, St. George, and several others. Nevertheless it receives the lives of St. Paul, St. Arsenius, St. Hilarian, and other Holy Men; but it is only because they are written by St. Jerom. The Acts of St. Silvester are read in some Churches, althô the Author be not known. The Stories of the finding of the Cross, and of John Baptist's Head, are Modern Relations which some Christians read, but when such sort of Works fall into our hands, we must then follow the Apostles direction, who teaches us to try all things, and make use only of that which is good. He commends some works of Ruffinus and Origen, although he will not leave the Judgment which St. Jerom gives of them, nor approve what he hath condemned in them; He doth not wholly reject the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Caesariensis, because it relates many Important matters, although he condemns the Praises, which he gives of Origen. He commends the History of Orosius, Sedulius's Paschal Work, and the Poem of Juvencus.

Lastly, He sets down a Catalogue of some of those Apocryphal Works, which the Church re∣jecteth. After the Acts of the Council of Ariminum, he places the false Gospels, and other Apo∣cryphal Books of Holy Scripture, the Works of Hereticks, and of some Orthodox Authors, who have departed from the Doctrines of the Church in some things, such as Eusebius, Tertullian, Lactantius, Africanus, Commodianus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Arnobius, Tichonius, Cassianus, Victo∣rinus Petavionensis, and Faustus Reiensis.

In the next year this Pope held another Council, [of 55 Bishops at Rome,] where Misenus the Legat of his Predecessor, who had been Excommunicated for Communicating with Acacius, was absolved, having humbly begged Pardon for his fault.

This is all we have been able to Collect of Pope Gelasius. He was a subtle and intelligent Man who much enlarged his Authority. He Wrote well, but obscurely. He is guilty of much false Reasoning, and often supposes those things for certain, which never were done. He was very skilful and knowing in the Customs and Usages of the Church of Rome. He loved Order and Discipline, and joyned Prudence and Courage with them both. He gave an ample demon∣stration of it in the business of Acacius, which he maintained against all opposition, and would not remit any thing for Peace sake, which he might easily have procured, if he had not so se∣verely insisted upon the Condemnation of Acacius. By which it appears, that the Popes were sometimes a little too stiff and resolute; for although Acacius had been more blame-worthy, than indeed he was, yet the Pope ought to have more mildly dealt with him for Peace-sake, and not to have persecuted with so much rigour the Memory of a Bishop, whose Sentiments were Ortho∣dox, and whose Fault seems to have been nothing but this, that he was not careful to please the Bishop of Rome, and was too submissive to the Will of his Prince. [He is also thought to be the * 1.294 Author of the Codex Sacramentarius, which is a Collection of such Forms of publick Prayers and Administration of Sacraments, as were in use in the Church of Rome in his time, which he digest∣ed into one Volume, putting them into a good Order, and adding much of his own. This Book lay hid for many Ages, but at last falling into the hands of Paulus Petavius, it was published at Rome, in 1680, 4to. And not long after it was Reprinted with some other ancient Liturgies at Paris in 1685, 4to, by the Care of F. Mabillon.]

ANASTASIUS II. * 1.295

ANastasius II. Succeeded Pope Gelasius, and was Ordained Bishop of Rome, * 1.296 Nov. 28. Anno. 496. The first thing he did was to write to the † 1.297 Emperor, to endeavour the Re-union of the Church. He exhorts him therefore in the first ** 1.298 Letter, and ear∣nestly intreats him to hinder that the Name of Acacius, which gave so much offence, should not be recited in the Church, and by that means procure the Churches Peace. At the same time he advertiseth him, that this would not derogate from the validity of the Ordinations, which Acacius hath conferred, or Baptisms, which he hath administred, because the Holy Spirit works by evil Ministers; and Sinners, who administer the Sacraments, hurt none but themselves, n•…•…r do hinder the effect of the Sacraments.

Anastasius sent * 1.299 two Legats to Constantinople to Negotiate the Peace, and at the same time Festus a Senator of Rome went about some publick affairs. There was also then at Constantinople a Priest and another Clergy-man, Deputies for the Church of Alexandria, who being desirous of a Re-union with the Church of Rome, presented a † 1.300 Memoir to the Pope's Legats and Festus, wherein they deliver themselves to this Effect; That the Churches of Rome founded by St. Peter, and of Alexandria planted by St. Mark, have always had the same Faith and Doctrine, and were so firmly united, that when any Councils were held in the East, the Bishop of Rome made choice of the Bishop of Alexandria to act in his stead, and hold his place in them; but there be∣gan a Division between these two Churches in the time of St. Leo, because his Letter against the Impious Heretick Eutyches being falsified by Theodoret, and some other Bishops of the Nestorian Party, who Translated it into Greek, and by the Authority of that Corrupt Translation, had

maintained the Doctrine of Nestorius, had given the Church of Alexandria occasion to think, that the Church of Rome was of that Opinion, and upon that account to separate from her Commu∣nion; On the other side the Bishop of Rome being persuaded that the Aegyptians opposed the Do∣ctrine, which he had received from the Apostles, had also separated them from his Communion; That they had sent Deputies to Rome to justifie, that their Church had no other Sentiments than those of the Fathers of the Council of Nice; but there was then at Rome a certain Man of their Countrey, an •…•…my to the truth, by whose means they were denied Reception and Audience; Insomuch that they returned without effecting any thing, but they understood since by Photinus a Deacon of the Church of Thessalonica, who was sent by his Bishop to Pope Anastasius, that this Pope did not approve of the Additions and Alterations, which had been made in the Version of St. Leo's Letter; That the Legats of this Pope, sent to Constantinople, having assured them of the same thing, they implored them to receive their Confession of Faith; that if it were found a∣greeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, these two Churches might be Re-united. In this Confession of Faith, having asserted with most serious Protestations, that they did receive the Doctrine of the three first General Councils, and the Anathema's of St. Cyril, without menti∣oning the fourth Council: They confess, that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father ac∣cording to the Divine Nature, and with us according to the Humane; that there is but one Son; that the Actions and Sufferings of Jesus Christ are proper to one Son only. They con∣demn those that divide or confound the Natures, or introduce a mere Phantom, because in the Incarnation there is no multiplication of Sons, and the Trinity of the Persons in the Godhead still remains, although one of the Divine Persons be Incarnate. They pronounce an Anathema against Nestorius and Eutyches. But they declare, that the Doctrine of Dioscorus, Timotheus, and Petrus, their Patriarchs was such, as that they do still follow it, and are ready to justifie it. Lastly, They conjure the Popes Legats to present this Confession of Faith to him, that he may approve it, and receive them into his Communion. Festus also was Commissioned by the Emperor to ne∣gotiate the Re-union of the Church of Constantinople; and he promised to sway Anastasius the Pope to Subscribe Zeno's Henoticon. But when he came to Rome Anastasius was dead; having been in the See of the Church of Rome but two years wanting six days.

There is another * 1.301 Letter of Anastasius to Lewis the French King, wherein he congratulates his Conversion to Christianity. Lastly, M. Baluzius in Tom. 1. of his new Collections of Councils hath published some fragments of a Letter of Anastasius to Ursicinus upon the Incarnation. Platina says, that he wrote some Books De Trinitate, De Libero arbitrio, de Regulis Fidei adversus Pelagia∣nam Haeresin, and many Sermons, but we know not upon what grounds. The Letters of this Pope are full of Moral Observations and Applications of Texts of Holy Scripture.

PASCHASIUS, a Deacon of the Church of Rome.

THIS Deacon flourished in the Popedom of Anastasius, and Symachus, under this last he * 1.302 favoured the Party of Laurentius the Anti-Pope; and some hold, that he was put in∣to Purgatory upon that Account, where Germanus Bishop of Capua saw his Soul, if we may believe the Relation which St. Gregory gives us in his Dialogues. He made two Books concerning the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, * 1.303 commended by St. Gregory, in which he hath not omitted any Material proof, which the Holy Scripture affords us to prove the God-head of the Holy Spirit. This Treatise is Written in a very good Method, and with much Ele∣gancy. It hath been Printed at Collen in 1539 [8vo. and at Helmstadt in 1613.] and put into the Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 8. p. 806.] Some think, that it is to this Paschasius, that Eugippius hath De∣dicated the Life of St. Severinus.

JULIANUS POMERIUS.

JUlianus Pomerius, a Native of Mauritania, and Ordained a Priest in France, lived about the end of the fifth Age. He composed a Treatise by way of Dialogue between Julian a Bi∣shop, * 1.304 and Verus a Priest, * 1.305 about the Nature and Qualities of the Soul, divided into eight Books. In the first he tells us, what the Soul is, and in what sense it is said to be made in the Image of God. In the second he examines whether it be Corporeal, or Incorporeal. In the third, he enquires how the Soul of the first Man was made. In the fourth, he discusses this Question, Whether the Soul, which is about to be infused into the Body, be created anew, and without Sin, or whether it be generated by the Soul of the Parent? And whether being so de∣rived by Propagation from the Soul of the first Man, it draws Original Sin from him? The fifth contains a short repetition of the Matters treated on in the fourth, with some Questions and Distinctions, such as this, Whether the Faculty, or Power of the Soul depends only on the Will? The sixth, inquires, From whence proceeds the Opposition between the Flesh and the Spirit, spo∣ken of by St. Paul. The seventh is about the difference between the Life, and Death, and Re∣surrection of the Flesh and Soul. The eighth, explains the Prophesies concerning such things as shall happen at the end of the World, and contains an Explication of some Questions proposed about the Resurrection. This Treatise is very Logical and Metaphysical, it teaches us, as Ter∣tullian had done before, That the Soul is Corporeal.

This Author hath written another Treatise, dedicated to a Person named Principius, about the contempt of Worldly Things; as also a Book of Instructions for Virgins: Three Books * 1.306 of the contemplative, and active Life; and another Treatise of Virtues and Vices. This is all that is spoken of this Author by Gennadius and Isidore in their Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Writers.

We have none of these Works but his three Books of the Contemplative Life, which have been † 1.307 printed among S. Prosper's Works, under whose Name they have been commonly quoted for above 800. Years, but the disagreement of Style proves that they are not his, and the Testimo∣nies of the two Catalogues above-mentioned oblige us to attribute them to Julianus Pomerius, un∣der whose Name they are found in several MSS. We have long since cited an ancient MS. of M. De Montchal Archbishop of Toulouse.

F. Quesnel hath added another MS. in the Abby of Trappe; and we have heard, that there is a very ancient one in the Library of the Chapter-House of Beauvais; where these three Books of a Contemplative Life bear the Name of Julian Pomerius, the true Author of them. In the first Book, having described the Happiness of the Saints, who enjoy the full Contemplation of the Godhead in Heaven, which the most Holy Men never have had in this Life, and shewed the difference between a Contemplative and Active Life, he exhorts the Bishops and Priests to betake themselves to a Contemplative Life, sequestring themselves from the Affairs, and Business of the World, and applying themselves wholly to the Study of Holy Scripture. This gives him an Oc∣casion to write against those Bishops,

whose greatest care it was to increase their Estates and Dig∣nities; Who placed their only Felicity in the enjoyment of Worldly Pleasurés; Who seek their own Glory more than Jesus Christs; Who have greater care of their Honour, than Conscience; and who place nothing of their Happiness in the hopes of the good things of another Life.

He ex∣cuses himself here, that he undertakes to publish the Irregularities of his Superiours, but still goes on speaking smartly against ignorant and vicious Bishops,

who neglēcted the Care of their Flock; Who are not at all troubled at the Crimes which they see committed by Sinners, nor pleased with the good Actions done in their Diocess; Who are very little affected with the sense of good or evil; Who are filled with the love of the World, living in Pleasures and Debauche∣ries, transported with Ambition, full of Injustice; dare not preach up contempt of the World, Temperance, a solitary Life, Meekness, Charity, Justice, nor other Christian Virtues, which they themselves do not practise. In the next place he shews, That it is not allowable for a Bi∣shop to leave his Church to acquire his own Ease, or to live at Liberty; that he ought to reform his Life, and become an Example to his Flock, instructing them as well by his Manners as his Words; that he is obliged to reprove Sinners severely. Lastly, he gives a Description of a good and wicked Bishop and Preacher.

He describes a wicked Bishop in this manner:

He is One that seeks after Honours, Prefer∣ments, and Riches, not that he may put them to a good use, but that he may live more at his Ease, be more honoured, feared and respected; Who chiefly aims to gratifie his Passions, con∣firm his Authority, enrich himself, and enjoy his Pleasures; Who avoids the laborious and de∣spisable parts of his Office, but is rejoyced at the pleasant and honourable; Who tolerates Vice, and Honours Sinners with his Friendship; yea, applauds their Crimes for fear of offending them.

To these Bishops he applies the words of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chap. 34. Wo to the Shepherds of Israel, &c. He directs, I say, these terrible words of the Prophet to these Bishops,

who have no care of their Flock; who think upon nothing but how to get the Milk, and the Wool; that is to

say, the Oblations and Tythes, with which they enrich themselves; Who do not cure the Sick, nor strengthen the Weak, nor bring back the stray Sheep into the Ways of Salvation; Who seek not those that are lost, as good Shepherds ought to do, nor comfort those that despair of the Pardon of their Sins; Who never shew their Authority unless it be in domine••r••••g tyranni∣cally over their People, &c.

On the contrary, he draws the Character of such good Bishops, as the Doctrine of the Apostles requires them to be, thus;

They are such as convert Sinners to God by their Preaching and Example; Are very humble, and free from Pride and Imperiousness; Who treat alliche Mem∣bers of their Flock with the same Love and Kindness; Who heal the Wounds of their sick People with mild, but effectual Remedies; Who bear with the Incurable patiently; Who in their Preaching seek not their own Glory, but the Glory of Jesus Christ; Who employ not their Dis∣courses and Actions to obtain Favour, or Thanks of Men, but who give God all the Honour that they bestow on them, because it is he that lives, and preaches in the Bishops; Who avoid Praises and Commendations; Who comfort the Afflicted, nourish the Poor, cloathe the Naked, redeem Captives, lodge Strangers; Who bring those that err into the way of Truth; Promise Salvation to those that despair; Quicken the Zeal of those who are going in the right way; Hasten those that linger; And who, lastly, discharge well all the Functions of their Ministry. These are the true Successors of the Apostles, the true Ministers of Jesus Christ and his Church, the Oracles of the Holy Spirit; Such Pastors as these appease the Anger of God against his Peo∣ple, and instruct the People in the Knowledge of God. They defend the Faith of the Church by their Writings, and are ready to seal it with their Blood. Lastly, They hold themselves fast to God only, in whom alone they put their trust.

The difference between a good and a bad Preacher he thus lays down:

The Life of a Preacher of Jesus Christ ought to be answerable to his Doctrine; He ought to Preach as well by his Man∣ners as Words; He ought not to raise his own Esteem by an Affectation of Eloquence, or pla∣cing his chiefest care in the Elegancy of his Expressions. He must not seek ••o please the People, nor gain himself Applauses from them, but his main aim is to affect them, and convert them, He must weep himself if he will make his Auditors to weep. A plain, grave, and easie Dis∣course will work better effect than the most studied and curious pieces of Eloquence. There is a great deal of difference between a Declaimer and a Preacher: A Declaimer useth the utmost strength of his Eloquence to gain Reputation; The Preacher seeks the Glory of Jesus Christ by explaining his Doctrine in a familiar Discourse. The Declaimer handles trifling Matters with choice and curious Words; The Preacher on the contrary elevates the plainness of his Discourse by the Nobleness and Grandeur of the Sense. The Declaimer endeavours to hide the Deformity of his Invention by the Fineness of his Discourse; but the Preacher mollifies and sweetens the harshness of his Words by the Beauty of his Notions: The one places all his Honour in the ap∣plause of the People, and the other in their Virtue. The Declaimer speaks plausibly, but his Speech is fruitless: The Preacher makes use of an ordinary Discourse, but he instructs those that will attend to it, because he corrupts not his Reason with the affectation of seeming Elo∣quence.

The second Book is about the Duties of an Active Life. The Author therein explains, how we must reprove, and bear with Sinners. He affirms that the most Holy Bishops are sometimes forced to tolerate Sinners, either because they foresee that Reproofs and Chastisements will but harden them, or because their Sins are hid. As to those, who come to confess their Sins to your Pastors, as Sick-Men come to shew their Wounds to the Physicians, they should labour to cure them immediately, and apply fit Remedies to them without flattering them, or assuring them that they are cured, when they are not. As to those whose Crimes are manifest before Confession, if we cannot heal them by gentle Medicines, we must apply to them the Fire of Reproof; and if that effect nothing, but they continue in their irregular Lives, they must be separated by the Sword of Excommunication as putrified Members, lest they corrupt others by theia evil example: But as to those, whose Sins are altogether secret, being neither discovered by the Confession of the Sinners themselves, nor the Testimony of others, if they do not amend, as they have God for a Witness, so also they shall have God for their Avenger. For though they may escape the Judg∣ment of Men, yet since they continue in their Sin, they shall be condemned to Eternal Torments, at least if they do not judge themselves, and revenge their Sin upon themselves by a very severe Punishment, for so they may change Eternal into Temporal Punishments, and by the Tears which flow from a wounded Heart, extinguish the burning of Eternal Flames. Lastly, As to those who are in the Ecclesiastick State, they are mistaken, if they imagine, that they may remain in the Communion of the Church, and in their Ministry, because they deceive Men by concealing their Sins, because unless they be such small Sins as we cannot avoid, and for which we daily beg of God in the Lords Prayer, That he would forgive us our Debts, they ought to be free from all such Crimes as being committed render Men obnoxious to Civil Justice: That as to those that have committed them, but dare not confess them for fear of being Excommunicated, they are guilty of a great fault in Communicating, because they feign themselves innocent before Men, and through an intolerable contempt of the Judgments of God, are ashamed to withdraw themselves from the Altar. On the contrary, they, who not being convicted of Sin, do acknowledge and confess it, or at least, not discovering it to any Man, keep themselves from the Sacrament, and withdraw themselves

from the Altar, at which they Ministred, not out of Courage, but Duty, bewailing their Sin in Secret, they may reconcile themselves to God by Repentance, appease his Anger, and render them∣selves worthy of the Heavenly City, and of Eternal Happiness.

In the next place, the Author goes on to shew how loose Bishops ought to be from the desires of Worldly Riches. He maintains, that those that enter into the Clergy, ought to renounce their Estates, fell all, and give to the Poor, contenting themselves with the Revenues of the Church, which they ought not to possess as their own, being only properly the Managers of them; That they ought to think the Revenues of the Church to be the Vows of the Faithful, the atonement for Sins, and the Patrimony of the Poor. So that they ought not to appropriate them to themselves, as properly belonging to them, but to distribute them to the Poor, as a Trust belonging to them; That the Ministers of the Church have no right to them, but under the title of Poverty, and if they are Rich otherwise, and yet live of the Revenues of the Church, they rob the Poor; That they, who suppose, that these Revenues of the Church are a reward for their Service, deceive themselves by expecting Temporal Rewards for that, which deserves Eternal; That those, who have an Estate, ought to be so far from living at the Charge of the Church, that they ought to impart their Incomes to the Church, without being in the least proud of it.

These Precepts, saith our Author, may appear hard. And I own it, but 'tis to them that have no mind to observe them, for to those that are willing to keep them, nothing is more easie, for practise will soon make them so: for what difficulty is there in contenting themselves with the Revenues of the Church, when they have enough to maintain them, or to forsake their own Estates, when the Church allows them a sufficient maintenance?

These are indeed good Rules, but very rarely put in practise. Julian Pomerius confirms them, by shewing how all Christians, but principally Clergy-men, ought to despise Riches.

The last part of this Book is concerning the Abstinence and Temperance of the Clergy. He shews how necessary this Virtue is, and how dangerous the contrary Vice. He makes Tempe∣rance to consist in two things, viz. in neither Eating, nor Drinking more than is necessary, and in not seeking out exquisite Dainties and Liquors. He tells us at the end, that we must break our Fast for our Hosts sake.

The last Book treats of Virtues and Vices in particular. He therein discovers the pernicious effects of Pride, Covetousness, Envy, and Boasting. He speaks very largely of Charity, of the four Cardinal Virtues, Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, and Justice. This Book is full of de∣finitions, and divisions of Virtues and Vices, Natural descriptions of them, and very profitable Maxims.

The Discourse of this Author is not excellent for the Elegancy of the Expressions, but for the acuteness and neatness of the Notions.

GENNADIUS.

GEnnadius, a Priest of Marseille, did himself make a Catalogue of his own Works, at the * 1.308 end of his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers.

I have Written, saith he, eight Books against all the Heresies, six Books against Nestorius, three Books against Pelagius. A Treatise concerning the Millennium, and St. John's Revelation. * 1.309 A Book of the Ec∣clesiastical Writers; and a Treatise of the Doctrine I hold, and believe, sent to Pope Gelasius. We have nothing of his but the two last.

It is needless to speak of the first here, because we have Copied it out wholly in this Volume. The Last, which bears this Title at present, Of the Doctrines of the Church, hath gone a long time under the Name of St. Austin, although the Authors of this Age have told us, that it is Gennadius's, and it carries his Name in some anci∣ent MSS. See what we have already said, when we spoke of the Additions to the 8th Tome of St. Austin's Works. It is Composed in the form of a Con∣fession of Faith; but in delivering the Orthodox truths he rejects the Contrary Errors, and Names the Maintainers of them. The five first Articles are about the Trinity, and Incarnation; the four following upon the Resurrection. In these last, he re∣jects the fabulous Opinion of the Millennaries, and the Errors of Origen and Diodorus, and proves that there shall be but one Resurrection of the Flesh, which shall be real, though incorruptible. He thinks, that it may be said, that those, who shall be found alive at the day of Judgment, shall not Die, but shall only be Changed, but it can't be asserted without an Error, that the Tor∣ments of the Devils or Wicked Men shall one day have an end. He is of Opinion, that none but God is Spiritual; that all Creatures are Corporeal, although Intellectual Creatures are Immor∣tal. He rejects the Opinion of Origen about the Pre-existence of Souls, as also of those that hold that they are produced by generation. He says, that God Creates, and at the same time infuses them into the Body. He asserts, that only the Soul of Man exists separately from the Body; that Man is made up of a Soul and Body, but there is no difference of Substance in him. He

holds that Man was Created free, but by Sin he hath lost the strength of that liberty; but yet he has not quite lost the power of choosing Good, and refusing Evil, and to seek after his own Sal∣vation, because God exhorts him, stirs him up, and encourages him to do it. So that the begin∣ning of Man's Salvation proceeds from his Free-will strengthened by Grace, because he can freely yield to its Inspiration, but it is the Gift of God to be able to attain the end we desire; that it depends upon our Labour, and the assistance of God, that we do not fall from the state of Grace, and when we do fall, we ought to impute it to our own negligence, and the viciousness of the Will.

He passes next to the Sacraments, and affirms, That there is but one Baptism, and that we must not Baptize them again, who have been Baptized by Hereticks, with the Invocation of the Name of the Trinity; but they, who have not been Baptized in the Name of the Trinity, ought to be Rebaptized, because such a Baptism is not true. He neither commends nor blames the practise of those, who received the Sacrament every day. But he exhorts and requires them to receive the Sacrament every Sunday, provided they are not linked to any Sin; for those who are accu∣stomed to any Sin, are rather leaden by the guilt, than purged from it by the Sacrament, but yet he that finds himself averse from Sin, may receive the Sacrament, although he hath Sin'd, which he understands, as himself says, of him, who hath not committed any grievous, or heinous Sins; for whosoever hath committed any of these sort of Sins after Baptism, he exhorts him to testifie his sorrow for them, by performing publick Penance, and so be restored to the Communion of the Church by the Absolution of the Priest, if he will not subject himself to Condemnation by re∣ceiving of the Sacrament. Not that I deny, that Heinous Sins can be * 1.310 remitted by a Private Re∣pentance; but then it must be done by an entire change of the Custom of Living, by a continual sorrow for them, and not receiving the Sacrament, till they had made a thorough Reformation, and live altogether otherwise than they have done.

True Repentance, is not to be guilty again of that which we have Repented of, and real sa∣tisfaction consists in eradicating Sin, and never more exposing our selves to Temptations.

In the 25 * 1.311 Article he affirms, That we ought not to expect any thing Earthly in our Happi∣ness, and that the Millennary Reign of Christ is a mere Chimaera.

The other Articles are nothing but Explications of the precedent, or concern the Discipline of the Church. He speaks also of Grace and Free-will in Art. 26, where he says, that no Man tends to Salvation, unless he be called to it, and that none that are called can it obtain but by the help of God: that none obtains this assistance but he that prays for it; that God wills not that any should Perish; that he only permits it, that he may not injure Man's Freedom. He adds in Art. 27, and those that follow, that God did not create Sin; that Men commit it by their Free∣dom; That this proves that only God is immutable; That the Angels have voluntary persevered in goodness; That Marriage is good, when it is used for the procreation of Children, or to a∣void Fornication; That Celibacy, when it is preserved with a design to serve God, is a very ad∣vantageous State, and Virginity is also most excellent; That it is Lawful to eat of all sorts of Meats, but it is convenient to abstain from some and preserve Temperance; That it is credible that Mary the Mother of God did always remain a Virgin; That we ought not to believe, that at the Day of Judgment, the Elements shall be destroyed, but only changed; That the Resur∣rection shall not quite take away the difference of Sexes; That the Souls of the Righteous go to Heaven as soon as they depart from their Bodies, and then expect perfect Happiness; but the Souls of Sinners are kept in Hell where they wait their Punishment; That the Flesh of Man is not Naturally Evil; That the Devil doth not know the Secret Thoughts of Man, but guesses at them only by the Motions of the Body; That he is not always the Author of Evil Thoughts though God be always of Good ones; That he never enters the Soul, but is united and joyned to it; That the Miracles and Wonders which Wicked Men do, doth not make them more Holy or better Men; That there is no Righteous Man that Sins not, but for all that he continues Righteous; That no Unbaptized Person can be saved, and therefore Catechumens obtain not Eter∣ternal Life, unless they have suffered Martyrdom, because all the Mysteries of Baptism are ac∣complished by Martyrdom; for he that is Baptized, professes his Faith in Jesus Christ before his Bishop; He that suffers Martyrdom, doth it before his Pesecutors. After this Confession the Ca∣techumen is either plunged in, or sprinkled with the Water; the Martyr is either sprinkled with his own Blood, or cast into the Fire. The Person Baptized receives the Holy Spirit by the Im∣position of the Bishop's Hands, the Martyr is an Instrument of the Holy Spirit, which moves, and speaks in him. The Person Baptized partakes of, and remembers the Death of Christ, by receiving the Sacrament; the Martyr dies with Jesus Christ. The Baptized person renounces the World, the Martyr abandons Life. All Sins are pardoned by Baptism, and blotted out by Martyrdom; This comparison we have thought fit to recite at large for the excellency of it. Let us now return to the other Articles of Gennadius, not yet spoken of. They almost all concern Discipline or Morality; That Repentence can procure Pardon of Sins, yea even for those who defer it, till they are at the point of Death; That the Sacrament ought not to be administred with Water only, but with Wine mingled with Water; That it is good to Honour the Reliques of Saints, and to go to the Churches which bear their Names, as to places appointed for Prayer to God; That Persons twice Married ought not to be Ordained; nor such as have kept a Con∣cubine▪ not such as have Married a Widow, or a Lewd Woman, nor the Lame, nor Usurers,

or Stage-Players; nor those who have done Publick Penance; nor Fools, nor Daemoniacks, nor Simonists. That the Clergy may keep their Estates, if they do it, that they may distribute the Yearly Revenues to the Poor, but it is better to give it them all together; That Easter may not be kept till the Vernal Aequinox be past, and the full Moon be over.

These are all the Articles contain'd in * 1.312 this Treatise of Gennadius. There is more Learning than Judgment in this Work; for in it Gennadius delivers many Erroneous Doctrines, propounds mere Opinions, as Articles of Faith, and condemns many Orthodox Truths. This Treatise of Gennadius, and his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, do evidently prove, that he was not of Saint Austin's Judgment concerning Grace and Free-will, but of Faustus of Ries, and that he approved of his Opinion, concerning the Nature of the Soul, and of all Creatures. His style is plain, clear, elegant and clean. I forgot to observe, that he hath added to Saint Austin's Treatises of Heresies, four new Heresies, viz. The Predestinarians, Nestorians, Eutychi∣ans, and Timotheans. This Addition is found under Gennadius's Name, in a MS. of St. Victor's Library, at the end of St. Austin's Book, and Hincmarus cites it under the Name of this Author.

NEMESIUS, AENEAS GAZAEUS. * 1.313

IT is probable, that these * 1.314 two Christian Philosophers lived about the end of the fifth Age. The first is Nemesius, who is commonly reputed Bishop of Emesa. He hath made a Trea∣tise of the Nature of Man, divided into 45 Chapters, which some attribute to St. Gregory Nyssene. In it he confutes the Manichees, Apollinarists, and Eunomians; but he confirms the Opinion of Origen concerning the Pre-existence of Souls. This Treatise is full of general and Metaphysical Propositions and Divisions, which are of little use to discover the Nature of Man particularly. He maintains, that Angels are Spiritual, and that the Humane Nature is absolutely free. This Treatise was first Translated by Valla, whose Version was Printed in 1535, and since by Elle-bodius: The same Version was Printed with the Greek by Plantin [at Antwerp] in 1565, and inserted in the Biblioth. Patr. [Printed at Paris] in 1624; and in the following Editions, [more correct, with useful Notes at Oxford in 1671, 8vo.]

The Work of Aeneas Gazaeus concerning the Immortality of the Soul, and the Resurrection, is not so abstract as Nemesius's. It is a * 1.315 Dialogue, wherein he treats of the Immortality of the Soul of Man, and the Resurrection of the Body; but he mixes his discourse, that it may be more pleasing, with many enquiries into the Opinions of the Philosophers, and with an abundance of Curious Stories. He believes that God creates Souls to infuse them into Bodies, and that the number of them, though fixed and certain, yet is known to none but God; that Souls are sen∣sible of nothing without Bodies; that Man is very free; that the Bodies shall rise in the same form that they had in this World; that Devils assume the form of Dead-men to trouble the Li∣ving; That the Reliques of the Martyrs make the Devil to fly; That there are many Miracles done by the Prayers of Good Men; That Dead Men have been raised, &c. This Author wrote about the end of the Fifth Age; for about the end of his Treatise he speaks of the Persecution of the Vandals against the Orthodox, as a thing that lately happened. His Treatise was Transla∣ted by Ambrose Camaldulensis [and Printed at Basil in 1516,] and put into the Biblioth. Patr. [at Paris in 1624,] and Printed since in Greek and Latin, [by Wolphius at Basil in 1560.] Translated by Casp. Barthius, and Printed at Lipswich [in 1658, 4to.] with Zacharias Bishop of Mitylene, who was another Christian Philosopher, but more Modern, [for he flourished about 536.]

GELASIUS CYZICENUS. * 1.316

THE Preface of the History of the Council of Nice, which bears Gelasius's Name, disco∣vers to us, that this Author was of Cyzicum, and that he lived toward the end of the fifth Age; for he says, That his Father was a Priest of that Church, and that the Per∣secution of the Emperor * 1.317 Basiliscus against the Orthodox gave him an occasion of wri∣ting this Work. He thought at first that all his business had been to Copy out the Ancient Acts of the Council of Nice, which heretofore had belonged to Dalmatius, Bishop of Cyzicum, and which were fallen into his Fathers Hands: But not finding them perfect, he was forced to add several things to them related by several Authors, but chiefly by Eusebius Caesariensis and Rufinus, whom he makes a Roman Priest, and whom he says falsly to have been present at that Council. And indeed this History is nothing almost but a Collection of Treatises, and pieces taken out of Euse∣bius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. That which is not taken out of these Authors, is either

dubious, or manifestly false, as all that is related from Chap. 11. to Chap. 24. of the second Book. about the Disputes of the Philosophers upon the Trinity, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is manifest, that these Disputes are a mere Fiction; and 'tis certain, that the Question concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not moved in the Council of Nice. There are many other faults in his History. There is neither Order in his Relation, nor Exactness in his Observati∣ons, nor Elegancy in his Expressions, nor Judgment in the choice of Things, nor good Sense in his Sentences. So that this Historian must be accounted a bad Compiler, who hath collected without any Judgment whatsoever he found concerning the Council of Nice, whether bad or good, not examining whether it were true or false. Which being so, 'tis no wonder that he hath said, That Hosius supplied the place of the Bishop of Rome in the Council of Nice, and that it was he that called that Council, though both are contrary to the Testimonies of the Letters of the Council it self, and of the Authors that lived at that time. This Work is divided into three Books; the two first contain the History of the Council, the third is made up of three Letters of the Emperor Constantine. It hath been published in Greek and Latin by Robert Balforeus, [a Scotch-Man, with his own Notes] and printed at Paris by Morellus, with some Works of Theodorus a Priest of Raithu in the Year 1595. [1599. ca.] and in 1604. by Commelinus. Since it hath been put into the Coun∣cils of Rome, in Binius's second Edition, as also in Louvre's, and the last Editions. It would be better to leave it wholly out in the first Edition of the Councils, that shall be hereafter published

The Author of the Books Attributed to S. DIONY∣SIUS * 1.318 the Areopagite.

THis is a fit time to speak of the Books attributed to S. Dionysius the Areopagite: For * 1.319 since they first appeared in the beginning of the sixth Age, it is very probable that they were composed at the end of the fifth. We will not repeat here, what we have said in the first Part of this History, but content our selves to observe whatever is most useful in them.

The Book of the Coelestial Hierarchy is full of Metaphysical Remarks about the Number and Distinction of Angels. He divides them into three Hierarchies, and nine Orders, to which he appropriates different Names and Offices. But in all that he says upon this Subject, there is no∣thing either solid, or profitable.

His Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is more useful, because they teach us after what man∣ner the Sacraments were administred in the Church in the time of this Author. Let us begin with Baptism. The Bishop having preached, and instructed the Catechumen, he sends for him into the Congregation of the Faithful, where he recites with all the Church an Hymn taken out of Holy Scripture; and having kissed the Holy Table, he goes to the Catechumen, and demands of him, Why he is come thither? He having answered him, Because he loves God, and believes the Truths which he hath heard of him; The Bishop gives him a Description of the Christian Life, and then asks him, If he will live after this manner? After he hath promised it, he lays his Hands on him, and orders the Priests to write down the Name of this Man, and of the Person that hath answered for him. When this is done, he goes on to rehearse some sacred Prayers; when they are finished, he causes him to be stripped by his Deacons, and having caused him to turn, and stretch forth his Hands toward the West, he commands him to breathe three times against Satan, and to make the ordinary Renunciations (viz. of the World, Flesh and Devil) three times. Then he turns him to the East, and causing him to lift up his Hands towards Heaven, he enjoyns him to profess, that he believes all that Jesus Christ hath taught, and whatsoever is contained in the Holy Scriptures. This being done, he causes him to rehearse the Confession of Faith three times: Then he makes some Prayers, blesses him, and lays his Hands on him. Then the Dea∣cons strip him quite, and the Priests bring the Oyl of the Holy Unction, and the Bishop having begun to anoint him, by making the Sign of the Cross thrice upon him, he leaves it to the Priests to anoint his whole Body. From thence he brings him to the Sacred Font, and having sanctified the Water by the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and having consecrated it by putting in Oyl in the form of a Cross three times, while they recite some Prophesies, he commands them to bring him to the place where he is to be Baptized. The Priests call him, and his Godfather by their Names: They bring him to the Bishop, who takes him by the Hand, and the Priests having read his Name, he dips him three times in the Water, and invokes the Name of the Holy Trinity every time as he goes into, and come out of the Water. When this is done, the Priests carry him away, and lead him to his Godfather. After he has put on his Cloaths, they conduct him again to the Bishop, who having anointed him with that Oyl, which renders Men Holy, he commands him to receive the Sacrament, which hath a particular Power to perfect Holiness.

Thus this Author describes the Ceremonies of Baptism; and then makes some Mystical Ob∣servations upon them, which we shall pass over, that we may come to what he says about the Eucharist, which he calls the most perfect of all the Sacraments. He says, That we have Reason to give it the Name of Communion ‖ 1.320, by way of Eminence, because this is the Sacrament which unites more particularly; and that it is for this Reason that it is not permitted to execute any Function in the Hierarchy, unless it be consummated by the Communion. After this Reflexion he returns to the man∣ner of the Ceremony, and says, That the Bishop being returned to the Altar, sings some Psalms, and all the Clergy sing with him. Then the Deacons read the Holy Scriptures; and when they have done reading, they put out the Catechumens, * 1.321 Enurgumeni, and Peni∣tents, and leave none in the Church, but such as are worthy to behold the Holy Mysteries, and Communicate: That some of the Deacons remain at the Doors of the Church, which are fast shut, and others are employed in the Church; That the chief, and most eminent Deacons, carry the Bread and Cup to the Altar with the Priests, after all the Clergy have sang Praises to God: That the Bishop prays with them, and pronounces Peace to all the Faithful, who kiss each other. Then they recite the Hymn called † 1.322 the Trisagion. Af∣ter the Priests and Bishops have washed their Hands, the Bishop comes alone to the middle of the Altar, having about him the Priests, and some of the Dea∣cons; and having praised the Works of God, they consummate these most Divine Mysteries, and place before their Eyes the things which they have praised, when they set the Signs upon the Altar. Having then shewn these Holy and Divine Gifts, he Communicates, and invites all the rest to partici∣pate with him. The Communion is concluded with Hymns of Praise and Thanksgiving.

The † 1.323 Sacrament of Unction comes next the Holy Eucharist; and as they put out the several Ranks of the less-perfect during the Consecration of the Eucharist, so also, when the Bishop con∣secrates the Oyl, the Temple is perfumed with the Odours, and with the Incense: And after they have rehearsed the Psalms, and read the Scriptures, the Bishop takes the Oyl, and puts it under the Altar; and while they sing the Prophetical Hymns, he finishes the Ceremonies of its Conse∣cration. He afterward makes use of it almost in all the Episcopal Functions.

From the Sacraments he comes to the Ordination of the several Degrees of the Clergy. The Bishop is the first, and chief, it belongs to him alone to Ordain and Consecrate the Oyl. The Priests are subject to the Bishop, but partake of the Priestly Functions, and have their particular Offices. They shew the Effects of their Power in the Holy Signs and Sacraments, which they shew to those, that draw near to them, and then make them Partakers of the Holy Mysteries, and Sacred Communion. The Order of Deacons is to prepare, and single out such Persons as may be allowed to approach the Holy Mysteries.

The Ceremonies used in the Ordination of these several Orders, are these. The Bishop pre∣sents himself upon his Knees before the Altar, bearing the Holy Bible upon his Head, and ano∣ther Bishop layeth his Hands on him, and Consecrates him by Prayer. When a Priest is Conse∣crated, he also kneels upon both his Knees before the Altar, and the Bishop lays his Right Hand upon him, making Prayers. The Deacons bend but one Knee before the Altar, and in the mean time the Bishop puts his Hands upon them, and Consecrates them also with the ordinary Prayers. He also signs every one of them with the Cross, gives them some Instructions, and concludes by giving them the Kiss of Peace, which they receive not only of the Bishop, but of all the Clergy. So that the Bishops, Priests and Deacons have this in common in their Ordination, to present them∣selves before the Altar, kneel and receive the Imposition of the Bishops Hands, the Sign of the Cross, Instruction, and a Kiss. The Bishops have this peculiar to them, that the Holy Bible is laid upon their Head, and the Deacons bend but one Knee.

As there are several Orders of the Clergy, so there are also several Degrees among the Laity. He distinguishes them into three sorts: 1. Catechumens, which are not as yet cleansed. 2. Peni∣tents, who having lost their Innocency, have need of Purifying. The Deacons are employed to perfect, and purifie these two Ranks of Christians, that they may make them fit to behold, and par∣take of the Sacraments from which they are excluded. The 3d is, Harmless and Chaste People, who are admitted to the Holy Communion.

But the most excellent Estate among the Laicks is the Holy Monks, which our Ancestors called Ascetae, or Monks, because of their solitary and contemplative Life, which unites them to God. Upon this account another sort of Consecration is honoured, which is not indeed performed by the Bishop, but by the Holy Priests after this manner. The Priest standing before the Altar re∣hearses those Prayers, which use to be said at the Consecration of a Monk. The Person to be Consecrated is standing behind him, for he neither kneels, nor has the Bible put on his Head, but he is only near the Priest, who recites the Prayer. When that is finished, he goes to him that is initiated, and asks him, Whether he forsakes not only a Worldly Life but also all Hankerings after the World? He tells him, what a perfect Life he embraces, and assures him, that he must excel the Life of all ordinary Christians. And when he hath promised to do all that he requires

of him, the Priest having made the Sign of the Cross upon him, cuts off his Hair, invoking the Holy Trinity, gives him another Habit; and having embraced him, and caused all the Pious Persons there present to embrace him, he gives him the Communion.

Lastly, As to the State of the Dead, they, who have lived well, being come to the end of their Race, they know more clearly after their Death, and see nearer at hand that Eternal Happiness, which they are sure one Day to be possessed of; the very thoughts of which fills them with inex∣pressible Joy. The Relations of the Dead share in this Joy, praising and giving Thanks to God in their Prayers, because he died a Conqueror of this World, they carry his Body to the Bishop, who receives it, and performs the usual Ceremonies about it in this manner. Having assembled the Clergy, if the Dead Person were in Orders, he places his Body before the Altar, and begins to pray to God, and give Thanks unto him: But if he were a Monk, or Lay-Man, they place him at the Door of the Church, and makes a solemn Prayer about him. Then the Deacons having recited the Promises of the Resurrection delivered to us in Holy Scripture, they sing those Psalms, which have relation to it. The chief Deacon then dismisses the Catechumens, and then comme∣morates those, who have died a Religious Death, among whom he puts the Name of the Person lately deceased, and exhorts all the Faithful to beg of God an Happy End. The Bishop then draw∣ing near to him, makes some very pious Prayers over him; which being done, he embraceth him, and all that are present do the same: Then he anoints him with Oyl; and having prayed for all present, they carry his Body into a Sacred Place, and there Interr it among the Bodies of the other Saints. One of the Prayers, which the Bishop makes to God, is this: That God would for∣give the Dead Person those Sins, which he hath committed through Human frailty, and enstate him in the Light of the Living: That he would conduct him into the Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the place where there is neither Grief, nor Tears, nor Sorrow. These were Ceremonies of the Church used at that time at the Interrment of the Dead. Our Author in his Reflections puts this Obje∣ction: If every Man be rewarded according to his Deserts, what need is there of Prayer for the Dead? Of what use are they to the Wicked? And why do we pray for the Just? He answers, That it is certain, that Prayers are useful to those only who die well: But as in this Life, when we have good Designs and Intentions, we may be helped, and assisted by the Prayers of the Righteous, and this is an ordinary means of obtaining Grace, without which we often come short of it; even so the Bishop, who is the Interpreter of the Divine Oracles, and the Angel of the Lord of Hosts, who knows that the Justice of God weighs all things in an equal Balance, and pardons those faults, which Men commit through frailty, and so much the more, because no Man is free from them, prays to God that it may be so; Not that he doubts at all of the Goodness of God, but he begs this favour with the greater confidence, because he is assured, that it shall not be de∣nied him. And for this reason it is, that he doth not pray for those, who have not been Baptized, nor for Sinners, not only because 'tis not lawful to do it, and because he being only an Interpre∣ter of the Divine Will, he cannot without great rashness beg that which God will not grant, but also because his Request being unreasonable, he cannot hope to obtain it. Lastly, His Prayer is rather an Interpretation of the Divine Will, a Declaration of his Goodness, a Promise and Assu∣rance of what shall happen to the Deceased, rather than a Petition for a thing uncertain. After the same manner the Bishops Excommunicating Sinners are Interpreters of the Will of God, and do only separate them from the Communion, whom God hath already condemned: For we ought to believe, that if they do it unjustly, or through Passion, the Justice of God prosecutes their Actions.

This Treatise concludes with a Remark upon Infant-Baptism. The Author observes, That many Persons, Strangers to our Religion, derided and ridiculed that Custom of making others to promise for them. He answers, That the Bishop to whom this was said, ought to have answered pleasingly, and shewn first, That there are several things, for which we know not the reason, al∣though there are some, and those known to the Angels, but some are known to none but God himself: That in Baptizing Infants we do no more, than what we have learned, and received by Tradition from our Fore-fathers: That Children being well Educated, becoming Righteous and Holy Men, the Church hath thought fit to Baptize them, committing them to some Baptized Per∣son to Educare and Instruct them, who ought to take care of him, as his Father in Jesus Christ, for whose Salvation he must answer to him. For this Reason it is, that the Bishop demands of this Person, If he renounces, &c. that by that act he may oblige him to perswade this Infant, and teach him, when he comes to the use of Reason, to renounce those things which he hath promised to renounce by him. Lastly, The Bishop gives the Holy Sacrament to Infants, that they may be brought up Christianly, and may live a Life conformable to the Holiness of the Sacraments which they have received.

This is all that is most useful in this Author. I will not stay to make an Extract of his Trea∣tises of the Divine Names, and Of Mystick Theology, nor of his Letters; because these Works be∣ing full of Metaphysical and Platonick Notions, it would be hard to draw any thing that is plea∣sing, or useful out of them. [The several Editions of this Author's Books are set down in Vol. I. of this History under Dionys. Areop.] to which the Reader is referred.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Atticus.
• * 1.2

  Within six∣teen Months and some odd Days. Altero post anno. Socr.
• * 1.3

  Qui peter•• erubescunt.
• * 1.4

  Ecclesiasti∣cal Tables, wherein the Names of the Living and Dead Saints were written; and out of which they were read, and solemnly commemo∣rated at the publick Prayers, to shew respect to them, and Commu∣nion with them.
• * 1.5

  Tichonius.
• * 1.6

  Leporius.
• a 1.7

  A Priest.] All the Ancients give him no other Title; and it doth not appear by his Letters that he had any other.
• b 1.8

  Of Damiata.] Ephrem in Photius, c. 228. saith, That he was born at Alexandria; nevertheless it may be said, That he was of Damiata. because he retreated into a place near that City, as appears by his Let∣ters.
• † 1.9

  Anciently called Pelu∣sium, whence he is usually styled Pelu∣siota, by Authors.
• * 1.10

  S. Isidore Pelusiota.
• c 1.11

  He embraced a Monastick State.] His Letters make it evident enough, and Evagrius, l. 1. c. 15. of his History, assures us of it in the same Terms that we have used.
• a 1.12

  Famous] So Evagrius calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whose Fame is spread far, as the Poet says. They that make use of this passage to prove that he made Poems, understand it i••••. Ephrem gives him a like Epithet.
• * 1.13

  Dr. Cave, 2013.
• b 1.14

  He speaks himself of a Trea••••••e of Fate against the Gentiles.] Suidas says, That he had composed some other Works. He cites the Treatise of Fate, in Let. 253. lib. 3. I do not believe it a distinct Treatise from that against the Gentiles, cited in the 137th. and 228th. Letters of the second Book, because what is said in those Places respects the same matter.
• a 1.15

  A Native of Scythia.] Gennadius says plainly, That he was a Scythian. M. Holstenius and F. Norris endeavour to prove that he was a Frenchman; and this they pretend to do from ch. 1. conf. 24. but that Place doth not prove what they assert, nor destroy the Testimony of Gennadius, which is of great weight. Photius says, That he was a Roman, but he means it of the Place of his Abode, and the Tongue he wrote in. Honorius calls him an African, perhaps be∣cause he thought Scythia was in Africa. Some say he was a Native of Scythia and born at Carthage, but this is without Ground. What some say, That he wrote too elegantly in Latin to be a Greek, is not to be regarded. It is very possible that a Greek, living among the Latins, might write Latin as well as he hath done: Besides, he lived in an Age, when almost all Learned Men were skilled in both Tongues.
• b 1.16

  He withdrew himself into the Monastery of Bethlehem.] He says so himself in the Preface of his Institutions, dedicated to Castor; where speak∣ing of his First Exercise in that Monastery; he says, A pueritia nostra constituti.
• * 1.17

  J. Cassian.
• c 1.18

  Having lived seven Years] In his First Con∣ference, ch. 1. he tells us, That it was the De∣sire he had to visit the Monks, and profit by their Instructions, that made him undertake that Voy∣age: Germanus, with whom he travelled, had been longer in the Monastery than he; they always were very intimate. He relates, in his Conferen∣ces, the principal Discourses which they had with the most Spiritual Religious all-a-long their Voy∣age, and the Places whither they went, in the seventeenth Conf. ch. 31. He says, That at the end of seven Years they performed their Pro∣mise, which they had made, of returning to the Monastery; and then went into the Desart of Scythia.
• * 1.19

  De insti∣tutis Coenobi∣orum.
• * 1.20

  Forum Julii.
• † 1.21

  Scetis, Soz.
• * 1.22

  Lerina, an ••••••and, ad∣joyning to France.
• † 1.23

  Massilia.
• * 1.24

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.25

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to joyn toge∣ther, &c.
• * 1.26

  S. Nilus.
• a 1.27

  He died about the Year 451.] It is certain, that he lived under Arcadius; and that he was likewise a Recluse from that Time, since he wrote two Letters to that Emperor, about the Banishment of S. Chrysostom, which happened in 405. which are Letter 279. lib. 3. and 265. lib. 2. He must needs be pretty ancient, since he had been Go∣vernor of Constantinople. He was about Fifty Years Old when the Monastery of Sinai was afflicted by the Incursions of the Barbarians, as he himself says. Now this must needs happen about the Year 410, or 411. He could not then live to the Empire of Mauricius, which did not begin till the Year 583. Wherefore we must correct the Menologi••s, where it is said, That he lived under, or, to the Empire of Maurice, and put the Name of Marcian instead of that of Maurice. Allatius affirms, That he lived in the Sixth Age, because in Let. 70. lib. 1. directed to Tribunus Zozarius, he proves, That the Kingdom of the Jews is destroyed for ever, because there have passed Five hundred Years since the Death of Jesus Christ, and yet it hath not been re-esta∣blished, nor have the Jews had any Help. But S. Nilus doth not precisely say, that the Five hun∣dredth Year was passed, but that it drew near; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is to say, Lo! it draws ap••ce to Five hundred Years. Four hundred Years are quite pass'd, and we are going on in the Fifth Age. We have placed this Author after Isidore and Cassian, because he hath written upon the same Matters.
• * 1.28

  Tractatus Asceticu.
• † 1.29

  De vitiis, quae sunt virtutibus opposita.
• * 1.30

  Albianus a Monk of Nitria. Cave.
• * 1.31

  Not com∣mon but holy Bread, because still Bread and Wine.
• * 1.32

  The Au∣thor of the Con∣fessions of Faith, &c.
• * 1.33

  Possidius.
• * 1.34

  Uranius.
• * 1.35

  S. Coelestine
• * 1.36

  Septemb. 16.
• * 1.37

  [And therefore hath printed them at the beginning of his Edition of S. Leo's Works at Paris, 1675]
• a 1.38

  Nephew.] Socraies, l. 7. c. 5. Theodoret. l. 5. c. 35. Isidore of Damiata, l. 1. ep. 310. Alypius, in a Letter which he wrote to him, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 3. Con••. p. 788. say, That Theophilus was his Uncle. Nicephorus thinks it was by his Father's-side, but Facundus, c. 2. l. 4. and Epiphanius scholasticus hist. trip. c. 25. say, That S. Cyril was his consobritus, i. e. the Son of Theophilus's Sister.
• b 1.39

  Ordained in his Place.] After the Death of Theophilus, which happened Octob. 13. 412. There was a great Contest about the Election, some stood for Timotheus the Arch-deacon, others named S. Cyril; this last carried it, although the Captain of the Army in Aegypt was against him.
• * 1.39.1

  Abudatius dux militum Aegypti.
• * 1.40

  S. Cyril of Alexandria
• * 1.41

  Named Pe∣trus.
• † 1.42

  Laon.
• * 1.43

  a Theatm.
• * 1.44

  [One of the Order of the Theatins, a Sect of Priests in great credit in Clem. vi••'s time.]
• * 1.45

  [Printed alone in Lat. at Paris, in 1605. and in Greek and Latin, by A. Schottus, at Antwerp in 1618.]
• * 1.46

  [But he affixed them to S. Cyril, as the Fa∣thers, and not made by himself.]
• * 1.47

  [But are found to be Origen's. Care.]
• * 1.48

  [By the care of Jo∣hannes Au∣bertus, in Tom. 7.]
• † 1.49

  1605. Cav.
• * 1.50

  1608. Cav.
• * 1.51

  Marius Mercator.
• a 1.52

  An Italian.] F. Garner was of that Opinion, but the conjecture upon which it was grounded, was weak. F. Gerberon thought he was an African, and M. Baluzius was of this Mind. The whole Letter of S. Austin, publish'd by the Benedictins, clears the Matter. For it appears by the begin∣ning that M. Mercator lived at Rome with S. Sixtus and Coelestine, to whom S. Austin wrote at the same time the two foregoing Letters, which he sent with this last by the same Bearer.
• b 1.53

  A meer Lay-man.] He was neither Bishop nor Priest when S. Austin writ his Letter to him, for he gives him no Title of Honour, tho' he calls him his Son. Nor was he any thing more when he presented his Memoir to the Council of Ephe∣sus. Lastly, in his Book to the Priest Pientius, he speaks as a Man inferior to him to whom he wrote. Tu quoque, venerande Presbyter Pienti, jussisti, parui imperatis. Thou also, O Reverend Priest Pientius, hast commanded, and I have obeyed.
• * 1.54

  Commoni∣torium super nomen C••le∣st••i. Dr. Cave.
• c 1.55

  Anno 429.] ▪All this is taken from the Title of this Memoir. Nevertheless there is a doubt concerning the year, for it is not manifest whether it were in 429. that this Memoir was pre∣sented or translated. But he speaks in the Body of the Work of Theodoret Bishop of Antioch, who died in 428. as a Bishop deceased; and in the Ti∣tle it self he speaks of the condemnation of Coele∣stius in the Council of Ephesus, as a thing done; which proves plainly, that he translated it in the year 431.
• * 1.56

  [A Welch-Man.]
• * 1.57

  Caesaroma∣gus, Bello∣vacum, a City of Picardy in France.
• † 1.58

  Creed, Dr. Cave.
• a 1.59

  Of a City called Celeda.] S. Jerom in ep. 79. to S. Austin, calls him Celedensis. It is not known where this City is; some think that it is Celene, a City of Campania. We have still a Letter of S. Jerom's to Mark Bishop of Celeda.
• b 1.60

  Of the Defenders of Pelagius.] Jansenius affirms, That he was Pelagius himself, who took the Name of Anianus; but this Conjecture is false. The Prefaces to the Translation of S. Chrysostom's Homilies, make it evident, that Anianus is a real Author. S. Jerom speaks the like of him, and says, That he defends the Blasphe∣mies of another Person, that is to say, of Pelagius. It is true that he defends in his Work such Do∣ctrines, as he would not acknowledge in the Synod of Diospolis; but there must needs be some De∣fect in the Text of S. Jerom, Quicquid enim in illa miserabili Synodo Diospolitana dixisse se denegat, in hoc Opere profitetur: Whatsoever he denied in the wretched Synod of Diospolis, that he had said, he asserts in this Work. We ought to add, or understand, the Name of Pelagius, and read, Pelagius dixisse se denegat: Pelagius denies that he had said Pelagius was a Priest. The Author of the Books against S. Jerom, and of the Transla∣tion of S. Chrysostom's Sermons, was a Deacon only: Nor is there more reason to confound him, as Baronius has done, with Valerian or Julian.
• * 1.61

  Novices.
• a 1.62

  Born in Apulia.] S. Austin, lib. 6. op. imperf. c. 18. Non enim quia te Apulia genuit: Because Apulia brought thee forth. Fulgentius says, That he was a Person of Quality.
• b 1.63

  Memorius. S. Austin, in let. 30. Paulinus in the Epitaph of Julian, M. Mercator. This last up∣braids Julian, as unworthy to be the Son of Me∣mor and Julienna, and treats him as a Bastard. He also observes, That he had two Sisters. The An∣cients do not tell us of what City Memorius was Bishop.
• c 1.64

  Ordained.] M. Mercator says, That it was S. Innocent that ordained him. In 408. he was no more than a Deacon. He was young, but it is probable that he was Ordained before 416. for Innocent died in 417.
• d 1.65

  Of Eclane.] Some have read Celane, but it is Eclane. The Testimony of Mercator fully determines this Point of History. This City was near the Lake Ampsanctus, between Campania and Apulia, distant from Beneventum about Twenty Miles: It is called at this Time Fringent.
• * 1.66

  This is a kind of Pre∣fatory Dis∣course to the Com∣mentary up∣on Canticles, and so not a distinct Book.
• † 1.67

  De b••no Constantiae.
• * 1.68

  Nestorius.
• * 1.69

  It seems ab••urd, when 'tis said, the People desi∣red others. And S••crates says, That Sisinnius was chosen by consent orall but not Ne∣storius; for he was cho∣sen rather a∣gainst, than by the con∣sent of all.
• † 1.70

  A great Mistake in Chronology for Atticus died Octob. 427. Sisinni∣us was Arch-bishop al∣most 2 years as Socrates tells us, l. 7. c. 28. Ne∣storius was ordained 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Months after Sisin∣nius's death, so that he could not be in possession of the Patri∣archate till near 430. and yet Dr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ag•…•…s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Du••in.
• * 1.71

  John Bi∣shop of Antioch, &c.
• a 1.72

  He was elder.] He was the Scholar of the famous Anchorite Asteri••••, and had for a very long Time professed a Monastick Life, in a Mo∣nastery, in a Village near Antioch. He was or∣dained Bishop in the Year 378, and died in the Year 436.
• * 1.73

  Bishops of Nestorius's Party.
• * 1.74

  Eutherius Tyanaeus.
• * 1.75

  Theodotus of Ancyra.
• * 1.76

  [It had been pub∣lished by Card. Bar∣berinus at Rome in 1669. Octa∣vo.]
• * 1.77

  Orthodox Bishops of S. Cyril's Party.
• * 1.78

  S. Sixtus III.
• * 1.79

  Proclus.
• * 1.80

  Capreo∣lus.
• * 1.81

  Antonius Honora∣tus Bishop of Con∣stantina in Africa.
• * 1.82

  Victor of Antioch.
• * 1.83

  And ac∣cordingly Dr. Cave places him, in A. C. 401.
• * 1.84

  Victor of Marseille.
• * 1.85

  It also is printed by it self at Pa∣ris in 1560. in Octavo.
• * 1.86

  By Nation a Scotchman
• * 1.87

  Sedulius.
• † 1.88

  Consul in 494.
• * 1.89

  Philippus Sideta.
• * 1.90

  Philostor∣gius.
• a 1.91

  Hence cal∣led Atheus.
• * 1.92

  1643. Quarto, Dr. Cave.
• * 1.93

  Dr. Cave places him A. D. 410.
• * 1.94

  Nonnus.
• † 1.95

  At Leyden, Dr. Cave.
• * 1.96

  Socrates.
• * 1.97

  Sozomen.
• * 1.98

  Theodoret.
• * 1.99

  * Historia Religiosa, or Philotheus.
• a 1.100

  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 1.101

  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 1.102

  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 1.103

  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 1.104

  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 1.105

  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 1.106

  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 1.107

  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.
• * 1.108

  [1535. Dr. Cave.]
• * 1.109

  [Historia Religi••sa, Dr. Cave.]
• * 1.110

  [3 a Clock in the Af∣ternoon.]
• * 1.111

  [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 1.112

  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.
• * 1.113

  [These Books have been printed alone in ••reek at Rome in 1••••8.
• * 1.114

  [De cu∣randis affe∣ctionibus Graeco••um. Dr. Cave.]
• a 1.115

  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.
• * 1.116

  [Responsi∣ones ad quaesita Ma∣gorum.]
• † 1.117

  [Opus m••∣••••icum, sive de Mysterio∣rum▪ idei expositione, l. 12.]
• * 1.118

  Andrew of Samosata.
• * 1.119

  [Virulento admodum Libello. Dr. Cave.]
• † 1.120

  [8. Dr. Cave.]
• * 1.121

  Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, &c.
• * 1.122

  [6. Dr. Cave.]
• a 1.123

  S. Leo.] It is commonly believed, That he was a T••scan. F. Quesnel thinks rather that he was a Roman, because he himself calls the City of Rome his Country, Ep 27. S. Prosper, in his Chronicon, says the same thing. It is true, that in the ordinary Editions of the Pontifical, 'tis said, he was a Tus∣can. But there are 2 MSS wherein 'tis said, he was a Roman. However that be, he was brought up and educated at Rome.
• b 1.124

  Repute among the Clergy, &c.] He carried Zosi∣mus's Letter to Aurelius, when he was but an Acoly∣i••••••, as appears by the 1••1st. Letter of S. Austin to Sixtus. He was Arch-deacon under Pope Coelestine; the Books of Cassian, concerning the Incarnation, written in 420. at the desire of S. Leo, then Arch-deacon, are a plain proof of it. In 439. he got him∣self a great Name by appearing against the Pelagi∣ans, as it is noted in S. Prosper's Chronicon.
• * 1.125

  S. Leo.
• c 1.126

  Was chosen, &c.] After the same manner doth S. Prosper describe S. Leo's Election.
• d 1.127

  In the year 461. according to the Vulgar Aera.] The day is not certain. An ancient Ka∣lendar, which is in the 10th. Tome of M. Luke D' Ac••eri's Spicilegium, places the death of S. Leo on Octob. 30. Marianus Scotus places it on June 28. His Memory is celebrated on that day in several Mar∣tyrologies and Ecclesiastical Offices. His Festival is commonly on April 11.
• a 1.128

  In 455.] It is not probable that it was writ∣ten in 458. as ••••••••••ius and ••londel are of Opinion, because Rome was sack'd by the Vindals. S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had Business enough to watch over his own Ohurch, without troubling his Thoughts about the condition of others. It is very likely that Maurit••ia was still under the Dominion of the Empire, because otherwise he could not have received the News so ••••sily, no•• have written thither. He says, indeed, That that Province was at war with the Barbarians, but he doth not say that it was entirely subdued. F. Quesnel thinks, That this Letter was written in 442. One thing may make it doubtful, which is, That he speaks of the Decrees which he had made already, to hinder Laymen from being raised to the First, Second or Third Degree of the Clergy, which is pretended to have relation to ••••ist. 12. to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica, where he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him to preferr Laymen to the Episcopal Dignity: But, besides that he speaks not in that Place of the Second or Third Degree of the Clergy, but only of Bishops, he might make this Decree in are∣ther Letter. F. Quesnel grounds himself upon this, That Potentius might well be one of the Bishops of Africk, who having been exposed to the M••r••y of the Winds by the Vandals, were driven a shore at Naplas: but this is not beyond Controversy, all that can be said is this, That this Letter was written before the Year 455.
• f 1.129

  It is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Supposititious Passige, which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of S. Leo's.] This Article is found in the Collection of Dionysius Exiguus, where the Sixth. Seventh and Eighth are not to be found▪ But these are in Four Ancient Manuscripts, where the Second is not. Mer••••'s Editions of the Councils in 1524, and 1525. agree with these last Manuscripts, which are the ancientest and best. It cannot be said that S. Leo hath repeated the some thing in one and the same Letter▪ in two different Articles, about Virgins; either then the Second or Eighth Article must be added: Now 'tis most probable that it is the Second. For, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. It is not to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the most Ancient Manuscripta 2. It begins with the Conclusion of the same Letter: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c. This supposeth That the Letter is finished, when at this is but the Second Article of the Letter; and he speaks after∣wards of many other Things, contained in P••••e••∣tius's Relation. 3. F. Quesuel, says, That that which is discoursed of in these Articles doth not agree with the Condition the Church of Africa was then in. It is not probable that in the Perfecution, where in the Church was, they could ordain Bishops in the Boroughs. 4. He maintains, that '••is not Leo's Style, that the Words Diocess for P••••ish, Sp••c••••lius & propensius eommoveri, damnum proprii bonoris evadere, Epi∣scopali•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, were not S. Leo's, nor so much as used in his Time. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath not put this Article into his Collection, although he hath omitted nothing that might say or the Right of Appeals to the Holy See. 6. 'Tis likely that it hath been added to the ancient Colle∣ction of Dlo••y••i••s Exiguus, for the Title is different∣ly expressed from that of the others; that the titles at the beginning of the Letter, and Index are diffe∣rent. Lastly, Cres••••••ius, who follows the Code of Dionysius Exiguus, and hath inserted it in his Collection, hath put nothing of that Letter in it. These Reasons have made F. Quesuel to conjecture, That this Fragment hath been added in the Co••e of Di••••y••••us Exiguus, by the same Person that hath added the Letters of Pope Hilary and his Successors▪ as far as Gregory II.
• g 1.130

  In 442.] The Question which I Rusticus pro∣pounded to S. Leo, proves, That he wrote in a time when the Christians were much distress'd by the Barbarians. F. Sirmondus hath referr'd this to the Irruptions of the Hu••••s into France, under the con∣duct of Attilas; F. Quesnel to the taking of ••••••∣thage and the Desolation of Africa by Gensericus, in 450. This Opinion is confirmed by the Eighteenth Question; wherein he speaketh of the Christians of Africa and Mauritania.
• a 1.131

  Expressions.] Of which these are some Exam∣ples, Ab omni Episc••porum usurp••tione resecare, Ec∣clesi•• nuditatem deplorare, querim••niarum causam defer∣re, exemplum fiat imitabile, diversis modis alienare, co••∣••iventiam in Ecclesiae dam•••• miscere. All the Letter is written after a dry and barren way.
• * 1.132

  [Oecono∣mi.]
• * 1.133

  [Trica••••••∣nus.]
• a 1.134

  Thinks it to be written in 458.] He affirms, That there is a Fault in the Date of the Consulship, and that we must read Majorian for Marcian. 1. Because all the Letters of S. Leo, written in 451. un∣der the Consulship of Marcian and Adelphius, carry all the Name of Adelphius; and indeed when S. Leo mentions but one Consul, 'tis always the Western one which he names. 2. It is there Consulatu, but S. Leo never sets it down so, but Consule or Consuli∣bus. 3. Because it is evident by the Letter, that it is written on the occasion of a Question raised upon the account of some Persons who had been carried Captives by the Barbarians, and were lately return∣ed into the Province of Ravenna, their Country. In 451. there was no Invasion of the Barbarians in Italy, it could not be before 452. that A••••ilas laid waste the Country of Ravenna. This Letter then must be written some Years after.
• a 1.135

  Certainly Supposititious.] The Reasons which he alledg••s are convincing: These are the principal of them. 1. This Letter is not in the Ancient Manuscripts, but only in those which are later than Isidore's Collection. 2. The Ancients have not cited it: It is not in any Collection of Canons before S. Isidore's. 3. The Style is different from Leo's: It doth not come up to his Elegancy: S. Leo's would not have been so barren upon so good a Subject. 4. In the Title the Name of a Bishop of the Roman Church is given to this Saint, whereas he never assumed any other but that of a Bishop of the Church of Rome, or of the City, or Orthodox Church of the City of Rome. 5. This Letter is copied Word for Word out of the Second Council of Sevil, except the first part of it, which is imper∣tinent. 6. It contains Rules contrary to the Usage of the Church of Rome; as for instance, this, by which it is forbidden a Priest to enter into the Bap∣tistery, or to baptize in the presence of a Bishop. It will be said, perhaps, That in a Canon of the Council of Sevil it is said, That these Prohibitions were made by the Holy See, which agrees very well with S ••e••'s Letters. But this may be answer'd, 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ That this concerns not S. Leo more than any other Bishop of Rome. 2. That these Words are not in ••oaysas's Edition. It may be further objected, That Leo III. in his Letter to the French Bishops▪ writing against the Chorepiscopi, quotes the Decrees of S. Leo▪ but it is not this Letter which he cites, but the Letter to Rusticus, which lays down the Principles against the Ordination of Chorepiscopi. The Councils of Paris, Meldae and Metae cites the Decrees of Damasus, Innocent and Leo to prove, that the Episcopal Functions which the Chorepiscopi did perform were of no worth: But this doth not prove that these Popes have written any thing in particular against the Chorepiscopi. But although it were true that the Authors of the Eighth and Ninth Age had cited the Letter, under Examination, under the Name of S. Leo, it would not follow that it were really his: Perhaps 'tis Leo III's. This is what F. Quesnel says upon this Letter in his eleventh Dissertation.
• * 1.136

  [Leo Bi∣tu••••cen••••s.
• † 1.137

  Cenomanum vidunum.
• * 1.138

  Caesarodu∣num Turo∣nes.]
• * 1.139

  (b) The Third Province of Lyons.] This Letter was falsly directed to the Bishops of Thrace, for the Bishops named in the Title are French Bishops. It was Ecclesiarum quae sunt intr•• Provincia•• ter••iam con∣stitutae; some Scribe, not knowing what was meant by Ter••ia, put Thracia instead of it.
• * 1.140

  [Salvi∣an was no Boishp. Du Pin mi∣stakes Gen∣nadius's words. See C••ve in Sal∣vian.]
• a 1.141

  Preached in his own Church.] It is evident that the ••our first Sermons upon the Anniversaries of S. Leo's Exaltation to the Pontificate, are proper to this Pope, and were Preached at Rome. They can∣not agree to any other Bishop, or any other Church. There are also in these Sermons some things which none could fitly speak but S. Leo. The Sermons upon the Collects are built upon the usage of the Church of Rome. The end of the Sermons upon the Monthly Fasts, prove invincibly, that they were Preached at Rome; for could he otherwise say, Sabbato apud Be••tum Pe••••um Vigilias celebr••mus. The Fifth of Fasting contains a particular Fast of S. Leo's. The ••ent-Sermo••s relate to the Usage of the Church of Rome. The 80th. and 81st. upon the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, cannot be for any o∣ther Church, but for that of Rome, no more than that for the Feast of St. Peter's Chair. Lastly, They have all the Character of the Bishop of Rome speaking to his People. There is very little of them which could be Preached by any other Bishop, in any other Church.
• b 1.142

  In several places of his Sermons.] Sermon III. of the Epiphany. Tamen u•• nostri ••ihil de••i•• of∣••••cii, loqui de ead••m festivi••••••••, quod D••••i•••••• do••••••••∣••i••, audebo. Serm 7. de Pass. c. 10. De s••••vi••••te quam debeo. Serm. 2. de Resurrect. c. 1. Repos•••••••• v••s co••suetudinis debitum. Serm. 82. in Nat. Macc. he says of S. Six••••s, that he was, Magnificus Senator p••∣••ietum, sed magnificentior aedi••ica••••r anim••rum—•••• ••∣tilit••tibus institution•••• ejus etiam in ipso fru•••••••••••• de∣vo••a posteritas, & ••abi••ando quod condidit, & faci∣endo quod do••uit.
• * 1.143

  [Valesius says, Non erat Sermo ad Popuium sed exhorta∣tio ad Mar∣celli••am. No pu lick Sermon, but a private A mo••ition. But this is only to maintain his assertion, for the F. says, Populus con∣venerit, ne∣mo ••mpastus recedet, ••nd for that end goes on Preaching, Amb. lib. 3. de Virgin. in ipso li∣m ••••e.
• * 1.144

  [Ludi Cir∣censes, in honour of Neptune, or as others, of Juno, Minervd, & Jupiter.]
• * 1.145

  S. Hilary of Arles.
• * 1.146

  [Lerina, an Ille of France.]
• * 1.147

  [Priests, Dr. Cave.]
• * 1.148

  [The Life of Honora∣tus was put out by Ge∣nebrard, and printed at Paris 1578. Octavo. 'Tis also in Surius, and in Bib••. Patr. Tom. 7. with the other Two.]
• * 1.149

  [Being a Soldier.]
• * 1.150

  Vincentius Lirinensis.
• * 1.151

  Admoni∣tion, as Gen∣nadius's Commoni∣torium, Voss. Cave.
• * 1.152

  [Vossius in his Hi••••. Pel. prove, him a Semi-Pela∣gian from some places of this Trea∣tise, as also of his Obje∣ctions a∣gainst S. Austin.]
• * 1.153

  [Verani∣us. Cave.]
• * 1.154

  S. Euche∣rius.
• * 1.155

  [Epistola de contemp∣tu mundi, & saecularis Philosophiae, Dr. Cave.]
• * 1.156

  [De for∣mulis spiri∣tualis intel∣ligentie, Cave.]
• * 1.157

  [Vulgo Bruno Astensis.]
• * 1.158

  [Ancient∣ly called, Forum Cor∣nelii.]
• * 1.159

  Petrus Chrysolo∣gus.
• * 1.160

  [Dr. Cave follows this Opinion.]
• * 1.161

  Maximus Taurinen∣sis.
• a 1.162

  Cemele.] Cemele, Celle or Comelle, was the Capital City of the Vediantians, a People of the Sea-Alps. It was a long time the Seat of a Bishop. S. Leo joined it to the Castle of Nicaea, which hath been a Bishop's See since, Cemele being destroyed, so that there are no Remainders of it.
• * 1.163

  Valerian.
• * 1.164

  Victor Car∣tennensis.
• * 1.165

  [Tunnua in Africa. Cave.]
• a 1.166

  Prosper of Ries, altho' he was a meer Lay-man.] He was neither a Priest nor Clergyman, when he wrote to S. Austin, as appears by his Letter. In his Letter to Rufinus and the People of Geneva, he assumes to him∣self the Title neither of Bishop nor Priest. All the Ancients who have spoken of him, give him neither of these Titles. Victorius Aquitanus, in the Preface of his Chronicon, having given Eusebius the Title of Bishop, and Jerom of Priest, calls S. Prosper, Vir venerabilis, a Reverend Person. This was written a little after S. Prosper's death. Pope Gelasius gives him no other Title but Vir religiosissimus, altho' he calls Austin Bishop, and Jerom Priest. Gennadius, who never omits the Titles of the Authors he speaks of, says of S. Prosper only, That he was Homo Aquitanicae regionis. S. Fulgentius in his Book to Mo••imus, ch. 30. Prosper Vir eruditus. Marcellinus and Ado, in their Chronica, call him also, Hominem Aquitanicae regi∣onis. Hincmarus, Florus, Prudentius, Rabinus, ne∣ver give him the Title of Bishop or Priest. None but Honorius Augustodunensis, or rather some Igno∣rant Scribe, hath called him, Episcopum Aquitanicae regionis, by changing Homo into Episcopus. Trithemius makes him Bishop of Ries, but that cannot be, be∣cause Maximus was Bishop there in S. Prosper's Life-time, and he had for his Immediate Successor, Faustus, who out-lived S. Prosper. This appears by Si∣donius's Eucharistical Poem, dedicated to Faustus, where he says, That Faustus succeeded Maxi∣mus twice; once in the Abbacy of the Monastery of Lerins, another time in the Bishoprick of Ries. It is ridiculous to say▪ that he was of Rhegium in Italy. There were two Prosper's Bishops in France, but one was Bishop of Orleans, to whom Sidonius's 15th. Letter of his 8th. Book is directed, and the other subscribed the Councils of Vaison and Carpeniras.
• * 1.167

  S. Prosper.
• * 1.168

  [Camil•••••• and Theodo∣rus.]
• † 1.169

  [Gen••a▪ Cave. Voss.]
• * 1.170

  This Book was printed a∣lone at Ley∣den, 1606. and at Arras 1628.]
• † 1.171

  [So he calls the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, as being un∣grateful in denying that Grace which God so free∣ly bestows on Men.]
• * 1.172

  [These were printed alone at Helmstadt, anno 1613.]
• † 1.173

  [98. Cave.]
• * 1.174

  [In obtre∣ctatorem, Cavc.]
• * 1.175

  [Confessio Fidei. Cave. Printed a∣lone, Paris, 1619.]
• * 1.176

  The Au∣thor of the Books, Of the cal∣ling of the Gentiles, &c.
• * 1.177

  [Very an∣cient MSS. as one in the Library of the Monks of Louvain, another in Card. Cam∣bray's Li∣brary, and a third in the Library of the Abby of ••oniff. at Namur. Voss.]
• * 1.178

  V••ssius seems to think it the most proba∣ble conje∣cture, that these Books are Pro∣sper's of Orleans, and Dr. Cave is fully of his Opinion.]
• * 1.179

  [Dr. Cave and Vossius make this the same with Prosper of Orleans.]
• a 1.180

  So Abusive as is supposed.] Calumniosa certa∣mina doth not signify, in this Place, Disputes which are fill'd with Calumnies, for the Word Calumnia in Cicero and other good Authors, doth not always sig∣nify Calumnia, in that Sence we use the Word, but sometimes Subtlety and Cavilling, Craft and Wit∣tiness, &c. Qui saepe optimas causas ingenii calumnia ••udificare solet. Calumniari signifies also to produce false Quotations, or abuse wrongfully; so that Ca∣lumniosa certamina, signify subtle Disputes, full of Wranglings. And Calumniose objiciunt, imports, they object falsly. This Author takes it thus, Chap. xv. where calumniari justitiae occultae is to com∣plain causelessly of the Secret Justice of God: And Chap. xvii. he that murmur'd against the Good Man of the House, who gave as much to him that came last to labour as to the first, is call'd a Calumni∣ator. S. Leo also uses this Word in the same Sence, in Serm. 25. ch. 2. where calumniae quaestionum signify Subtleties: And in Serm. 58. ch. 6. ancilla Sacerdotis calumniante, that is exprobran••e. In Serm. 59. ch. 2. de terrenis calumniantur, that is, objiciunt; and in ch. 1. of the same Serm. calumniose & mi••aci••er con∣clamarunt. These Words impie diffitentur, and others, have not so harsh a Signification in Latin as in French. It is ordinary with those that defend Grace, to accuse those who attribute any Desert to the Free-will, of Presumption, Pride, Confidence, &c. The Author of the Books Of the Vocation of the Gentiles doth it with more Moderation than others, but he cannot forbear it altogether.
• * 1.181

  [Capitu∣la de gr••∣tia.]
• * 1.182

  Flavian, and seve∣ral other Bishops, &c.
• a 1.183

  Unless they are omitted.] Great part of this Letter is recited in the Council of Chalcedon, Tom. 4. of the Councils, p. 661.
• * 1.184

  Several Letters of divers Bi∣shops.
• * 1.185

  Basilius of Seleucia.
• * 1.186

  [Dr. Cave reckons 43, viz. 17 up∣on the old, and 26 upon the new Testament]
• * 1.187

  [cave. 1622.]
• * 1.188

  [By Timo∣theus and his Accom∣plices.]
• † 1.189

  [Caused, himself to be Ordain∣ed.]
• * 1.190

  [Two Bi∣shops, but deposed. As. Eva.]
• * 1.191

  Timotheus Aelurus.
• * 1.192

  Chrysippus.
• * 1.193

  [It is ex∣tant in Du∣caeus's Au∣ctuarium, Tom. 2. p. 424, in Gr. and Latin.
• † 1.194

  Eustratius. Cave.
• * 1.195

  Some Fragments of it are found in Eustratius's Treatise a∣bove cited.]
• * 1.196

  Vigilius Diaconus.
• * 1.197

  [De vidui∣tate colend.]
• * 1.198

  Fastidius Priscus.
• * 1.199

  [Dr. Cave thinks they are but one Treatise, and that Gennadius hath distin∣guished them falsly.]
• * 1.200

  Dracontius.
• * 1.201

  [It is also in Fabriti∣us's colle∣ction of Po∣ets, and in Appendic•• ••••••nean••, p. 83••.]
• * 1.202

  Eudocia, & Proba Fal∣conia.
• * 1.203

  [Not S. Cyprian of Carthage, but another C••prian, a Roman.]
• * 1.204

  [Centone Homerici 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Virgiliani.]
• * 1.205

  [371. Dr▪ Cave.]
• * 1.206

  Turcius, Dr. Cave.]
• * 1.207

  Tyrsius Ru∣sus Afteri∣us.
• * 1.208

  Petronius.
• * 1.209

  Constanti∣nus, or Constan∣tius.
• * 1.210

  Philippus.
• * 1.211

  Syagrius.
• * 1.212

  Isaac.
• * 1.213

  Simeon Stylites.
• * 1.214

  Moschimus, or Mochi∣mus.
• * 1.215

  Asclepius, Peter and Paul.
• a 1.216

  Of Bishops.] Salonius and Veranus are ordinari∣ly added, but there are several MSS, where they are not found. It is so read in Honorius Augustodu∣nensis, but it is an evident Addition, for who sees not, that there is no sence in the Text of Gennadi∣us, if it be read so. These are his words, Salvia∣nus divina & humana literatura instructus, &, ut abs∣que invidia loquar, Magister Episcoporum. This is good and compleat sence. But what does he mean to say after this, Sanctorum Salonii & Verani? Was it a thing to be envied, to be Master of these Two Bishops? No surely, But it was to be Master of Bishops, and to make Sermons for them, as we learned by what follows, Homilias scripsit Episcopis multas, for so it ought to be read, and not Episco∣pus.
• b 1.217

  Elaborate.] Scholastico Sermone, is a Term which was used at that time to express a Polite and Elaborate Discourse.
• * 1.218

  Salvian.
• c 1.219

  To Salonius.] It is in Gennadius, Pro eorum me∣rito satisfactionis, which is very obscure. M. Balu∣zius reads it, Pro eorum praemio satisfaciendo, which is not much plainer. I believe it ought to be read, De praesenti judicio & de merito satisfactionis ad Salonium Libros VIII.
• d 1.220

  Ecclesiastes.] It is Ecclesiasticus in Gennadius, but it is a mistake. It ought to be read, Ecclesi∣astes, as Ado observes in his Chronicon.
• a 1.221

  Hypa∣tius.
• b 1.222

  Palladia
• c 1.223

  Quieta.
• d 1.224

  Auspici∣o••a.
• * 1.225

  Arnobius, junior.
• * 1.226

  Honoratus of Marse∣ille.
• * 1.227

  Salonius & Veranus.
• a 1.228

  It is not well known, &c.] There is no doubt but that they were Bishops, Salvian says, That after they had been his Scholars they became Masters of the Church. Gennadius also says, That they were Bishops, and the Letter written to S. Leo, as well as the Answer of Pope Hilarius are Authentick Testimonies of their Dignity, but none of the Ancients have taken notice of what City they were Bishops. Sidonius Apollinaris in Letter 15. Lib. 7. directed to Salonius, tells us, That they Inha∣bited a Country near Vienna, which makes some think, that Salonius was Bishop of Vienna, but he was not then Bishop when Sidonius wrote that Let∣ter to him. Ado, who hath made a Catalogue of the Bishops of Vienna, doth not put Salonius among them. Others have believed Salonius and Veranus Bishops of Lyons successively, after their Father S. Eucherius. This Opinion is grounded upon the Catalogues of the Bishops of Lyons, which are ma∣nifestly faulty, for after Eucherius, his Sons Salonius and Veranus are placed, and after them Desiderius who was Bishop of Vienna, and not of Lyons. Be∣sides, Salonius subscribed the Council of Orange in 441, as a Bishop, where S. Eucherius was present. Wherefore he was Bishop of some other City in his Fathers life-time. The 4th Letter of Pope Hilary informs us, That Veranus had written in favour of Ingenuus Arch-Bishop of Ambrun, in the Province of the Sea-Alps, and that he was in Commission for the affairs that concerned the Bishopricks of that Province, which gives reason to conjecture that he was a Bishop of that Province. This a∣grees also with an Ancient MS. of the Monastry of Lerins, where Veranus, who is entitled Bishop of Vincium, is reckoned among the Saints of that Mo∣nastery. This is the Judgment of Baralis in his Chronology of Lerins, where he attributes the same Bishoprick to Veranus. It is probable, that Salonius was Bishop of the same Province, as well as Ceretius, since they have all three written to S. Leo together, and they seem to have done it distinct∣ly from the other French Bishops, for fear only least they should prejudice the Rights of their Me∣tropolitan, and their Province, by joining with other Bishops, who would have them depend on them. It is likewise very probable, that Salonius was Bishop of Geneva, and 'tis of him that it is observed in Usuardus's Martyrology, on Septemb. the 28th. Civitate Januis Sancti Salonii Episcopi & Con∣fessoris; And in other Martyrologies, Geneva Civi∣tate depositio Sancti Salonii. This Name hath been altered in Bede's Martyrology, and hath been made Salomon. Of Salonius is made Salomus, as we find in some Manuscripts, and Salomus hath been changed into Salomon, as it is in the Roman Martyrology. Genua, or Januis, is taken for Gennes, and that is Geneva. In the Subscriptions of the Council of Lyons, held in 570, under King Guntheram, we find Episcopus Ecclesiae Genevensis. If that Subscription be true, there must have been Two Bishops of Ge∣neva of the same Name. There was also at that time another Salonius Bishop of Ambrun famous for his Crimes.
• * 1.229

  Ebredu∣num.
• * 1.230

  Paulinus Petrocorius
• * 1.231

  Musaeus.
• * 1.232

  Vincentius.
• * 1.233

  Syrus.
• * 1.234

  Samuel.
• * 1.235

  Claudianus Mamertus.
• * 1.236

  Pastor.
• * 1.237

  Voconius.
• * 1.238

  Eutropius
• * 1.239

  Evagrius
• * 1.240

  Timo∣theus.
• * 1.241

  Eusta∣thius.
• * 1.242

  Theodulus.
• * 1.243

  Eugenius.
• * 1.244

  Episco∣pus Castu∣lensis, vel. Castello ripensis. C.
• * 1.245

  Cerealis.
• * 1.246

  Servus Dei.
• a 1.247

  Of Augusti-Lueus.] He observes in the Preface, that he was bo••n ex Leonicâ Civitate, and was Bishop in ••••llicia, and says likewise, That he was preferred to t•…•… dignity in the third year of Val••••tinian III. but doth not tell us of what City. They who speak of him, have supposed that he was Bishop of the same City where he was born, but what he notes upon the 310 Olympiad, that he was taken in the Church, which he had called aquae Flaviensis, when Augusti-Lucus was pillaged, shews, that he was Bi∣shop of that City, for Aquae Fl••viae, is not a Bisho∣prick but a Church subject to Augusti-Lucus. Saint Leo speaks of this Bishop in his Letter to Turribius, or rather to the Synod of Gallicia, heretofore the 93, now the 15th; and he gives him an Answer in the following Letter.
• * 1.248

  alias Hida∣tius.
• * 1.249

  alias Victori∣nus.
• * 1.250

  Now called the Golden Number.
• * 1.251

  Genna∣dius.
• * 1.252

  The Watching Monks be∣cause one 3d part of them was al∣ways ser∣ving God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.253

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.254

  Or rather Hilarius.] He is commonly called Hi∣larus, and so his Name is found written in the anci∣ent Marble Inscriptions. He is named in St. Leo's Letters, and in that of Nicholas first, to the Emperor Michael. Hilarius Marcellinus in his Chronicon calls him after the same manner. 'Tis probable, that he is called Hilarus corruptly only.
• * 1.255

  Hilarus.
• * 1.256

  Ambrun
• * 1.257

  Simpli∣cius, Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.258

  Reium Rhegium.
• a 1.259

  An Englishman, or Britain.] Avitus in his 4th Letter, says, that he was ortu Britannus, habitatione Riensis. Sidonius Epist. 9. l. 9. writing to Faustus says Britan∣nis tuis. Facundus calls him a Frenchman in his Book against Marcion, Faustus Gallus; but he evidently respected the place he dwelt in. F. Sirmondus says, that he was of the Province of Aremorica. I am rather of Usher's judgment, who thinks him an Englishman.
• * 1.260

  Faustus, Bishop of Ries.
• * 1.261

  were to
• * 1.262

  It is the 46th Ep. in Trob. Edition.
• * 1.263

  De Cor∣reptione, & Gra∣tia.
• * 1.264

  Ruricius, Desideri∣us, &c.
• * 1.265

  Ap. Sido∣nius, Bi∣shop of Clermont.
• * 1.266

  482. Dr. la.
• * 1.267

  Printed at Paris in 4 to, and after at Hano∣ver in 1617, 80.
• * 1.268

  J. Talaia
• * 1.269

  John, a Priest of Antioch.
• * 1.270

  J. Aege∣ates.
• * 1.271

  Called also Se∣gregatus
• a 1.272

  Rather than of Utica.] The ordinary Editions give him the Title of Bishop of Utica, but it is through an Error, because Utica is better known than Vita, for in the best MSS. he is named Viten∣sis. In an ancient Edition put out by the care of Rhenanus in 1541; he is also called Vitensis, as well as in another, which is at the end of an Old Book of Rufinus's Church-History, and in the Epistle De∣dicatory of the Collection of St. Austin's Sermons, Printed at Louvain in 1504. He could not have been Bishop of Utica; for when the Bishops were banished Africa, Florentinus was Bishop of that City, as appears.
• * 1.273

  Victor Vitensis.
• a 1.274

  Under King Hunnericus.] He is cited by Theodul∣phus as a Bishop of Africa, and in an Ancient MS. of the Work against Eutyches. The City of Tapsus is named for the Place of his Bishoprick. His Name is found in the Catalogue of the African Bishops, composed at that very time. He is the last, and by consequence the youngest of the Bishops of the Province of Byzacceum.
• * 1.275

  Vigilius Tapsensis.
• * 1.276

  This E∣dition was put out by Cassan∣der at Collen, in 1675.
• * 1.277

  And at Paris in 1627.
• * 1.278

  Faelix III Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.279

  An Or∣der of Monks.
• a 1.280

  Abydos.] Anastasius Bibliothecarius says, that they were seized at Heraclea; but Theophanes assures us, that it was at Abydos.
• * 1.281

  The Au∣thor of the Me∣moir.
• † 1.282

  An A∣frican, Son of Va∣lerius, Successor of Foe∣lix III.
• * 1.283

  Febr. 7.
• * 1.284

  Gela∣sius I.
• * 1.285

  Seneca, Senex delirus.
• * 1.286

  Who succeeded Zeno.
• * 1.287

  First in Order & Dignity, not in Power or Sove∣reignty.
• * 1.288

  M••dio∣lanum.
• * 1.289

  Caete∣ros{que} Ro∣manus.
• * 1.290

  D. Cave Entitles it Dicta ad∣versus Pelagia∣nam Hae∣resin.
• * 1.291

  The Popish Writers are gene∣rally of Baronius judgment, because there is a clear testimony against Transub∣stantia∣tion in this Book. Dr. Cave
• * 1.292

  De Scrip. c. 94.
• * 1.293

  Dr. Cave thinks them not the Work of Gelasius. 1. Be∣cause it doth not bear his name in the ancientest Editions. 2. Because some Books arecited in it, which were not then Written, or unknown as Sedu∣lius's Paschal Work, a Trea∣tise de Revelatione Capitis S. Baptistae, &c. 3. It con∣tains many absurd things in it, unbecoming the Judgment of Gelasius, and a Synod, &c.
• * 1.294

  Addition.
• * 1.295

  Anasta∣sius II.
• * 1.296

  Sept. 15.
• † 1.297

  Anasta∣sius.
• ** 1.298

  This Letter is in Tom. 4. of Coun∣cils. p. 1278.
• * 1.299

  Germa∣nus Bi∣shop of Capua, and Cres∣conius, Bishop of Tuder.
• † 1.300

  It is ex∣tant in Tom. 4. p. 1283. of the Coun∣cils.
• * 1.301

  It is ex∣tant in Tom. 4. Council. p. 1278.
• * 1.302

  Paschasi∣us, a Dea∣con of Rome.
• * 1.303

  Against Macedo∣nius.
• * 1.304

  Julianus Pomerius.
• * 1.305

  Dr. Cave takes them for an A∣bridgment of Neme∣sius's 8 Books Dé Animâ.
• * 1.306

  De vitâ contem∣plativâ, si∣ve de fu∣turae Vi∣tae con∣templa∣tione, Vel, de actuali conver∣satione. Dr. Cave.
• † 1.307

  They were also printed alone un∣der Pro∣sper's Name at Colen in 1536. 8••. and be∣fore in 1487.
• * 1.308

  Genna∣dius.
• * 1.309

  It is a continuation of St. Jerom's Catalogue of Ecclesi∣astical Writers from 392; where St. Jerom left off to 495, and therefore has been Printed with it at Basil, in 1528, 4to; at Colen, in 1580; at Helmstadt, in 1612, 4to; and at Antwerp 1639.
• * 1.310

  Par∣doned.
• * 1.311

  D. Cave is of Opi∣nion that 30 Arti∣cles of this work, viz. from Art. 22. to Art. 51 are not Genna∣dius's, but com∣posed by some other hand af∣ter Gen∣nadius's Death.
• * 1.312

  This Book hath been Printed by it self with the Learned Notes of Elmenhorstius at Hamburgh, 1614, 4to.
• * 1.313

  Nemesius, Aeneas Gazaeus.
• * 1.314

  Yet Dr. Cave pla∣ces them very far asunder, viz. Ne∣mesius in 380, and Aen. Ga∣zaeus in 487.
• * 1.315

  Entitled Theo∣phrastus.
• * 1.316

  Gelasius Cyzicenus
• * 1.317

  Basilis∣cus depo∣sed Zeno Ann. 476. & Reign∣ed not quite two Years. He was an Arian, and there∣fore perse∣cuted the Orthodox.
• * 1.318

  The Au∣thors of the Books attribu∣ted to S. Diony∣sius the Areopa∣gite.
• * 1.319

  Dallée's Opinion comes near our Au∣thors; but Dr. Cave and the Learned Bishop of Chester Dr. Pear∣son, place him soon∣er, viz. about the Year 362.
• ‖ 1.320

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.321

  Lunaticks. Persons at cer∣tain seasons vexed with unclean Spirits. These were kept from the Sacrament, though Bapti∣zed, ob mentis inconstanti∣am, for the levity and incon∣stancy of their Minds.
• † 1.322

  The use of this Hymn in the Sacrament, proves the Au∣thor to have lived after 445, when it was first appointed by the Synod of Vasio to be uni∣versally used. Hosp. ex P. Di∣acono, &c. Durandus makes Sixtus I. the Institutor of it. Du Rat.
• † 1.323

  Holy Office of Confirma∣tion.