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 IV.

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

Pope SYMMACHUS.

AFTER the Death of Pope Anastasius, which happen'd at the end of the Year 498, there was a fierce contention in the Church of Rome between Laurentius and Symmachus, which * 1.1 of them two was duly promoted to that See. Symmachus, who was Deacon, was chosen and ordain'd by the far greater number, but Festus a Roman Senator, who had promis'd the Emperor Anastasius, that his Edict of Agreement with the Bishop of Rome should be sign'd, procur'd Laurentius to be chosen and ordain'd. This Schism divided the Church and the City of Rome, and the most eminent both of the Clergy and the Senate took part with one of these two Bishops: but at length both Parties agreed to wait upon King Theodoric at Ravenna for his Decision in the case, which was this, That He should continue Bishop of Rome who had been first chosen, and should be found to have the far greater number of Voices for him. Symmachus had the advantage of Laurentius on both these Accounts, and so was confirm'd in the possession of the Holy See; and he ordain'd Laurentius Bi∣shop of Nocera, if we may believe Anastasius. At the beginning of the next Year he call'd a Council, wherein he made a Canon against the ways of solliciting men's voices, which were then us'd for obtain∣ing the Papal Dignity: But those who oppos'd the Ordinance of Symmachus, seeing him possess'd of the Holy See against their mind, us'd all their endeavours to turn him out of it; for which end they charg'd him with many Crimes, they stirr'd up a part of the People and Senate against him, and caus'd a Petition to be presented to King Theodoric, that he would appoint a Delegate to re-hear the Cause. He nam'd Peter Bishop of Altinas, who depos'd the Pope from the Government of his Diocese, and depriv'd him of the Possessions of the Church. This Division was the cause of so great disorders in Rome, that from words they came many times to blows, and every day produc'd fighting and murders: Many Ecclesiasticks were beaten to death, Virgins were robbed, and driven away from their habitation, many Lay-men were wounded or kill'd; insomuch that not only the Church but also the City of Rome suf∣fer'd

very much by this Schism. King Theodoric being desirous to put an end to these disorders, call'd a Council; wherein the Bishops being possess'd with a good Opinion of Pope Symmachus, would not en∣ter upon the examination of the particula Articles alledg'd against him, but only declar'd him Innocent before his Accusers, of the Crimes that were laid to his Charge: And they prevail'd so far by their Im∣portunity, that the King was satisfy'd with this Sentence, and both the People and the Senate who had been, very much irritated against Sym•…•…chus, were 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and acknowledg'd him for Pope. Yet some of the discontented Party still remain'd, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Writing against this Synod, and spread their Calumnies, forg'd against Symmachus, as far as the East: The Emperor Anastasius objected them to him, which obliged Symmachus to write a Letter to him for his own Vindication: But notwithstanding these Efforts of his Enemies, he continued in peaceab•••• possession of the Holy See until the Year 514, wherein he died.

The first Letter of this Pope is written to Aeoni•• Bis••op of Ar••es, which is dated Septemb. 29. in the Year 500. In this Letter he dec••ares, that his Predec••ssor had unjustly taken away from the Bishop of Arles the Right of Ordaining Bishops to some Churches, and given it to the Bishop of Vienna, contrary to the Custom and the Canons of his Predecessors. Upon this occasion he says, That the Priesthood being one and indivisible, altho' it be administred by many Bishops, the Successors can make no Innovation contrary to the Canons of their Predecessors; and moreover, That it is of great importance to Religion, that no dif∣ference of Judgment should appear among the Bis••ops, and chiefly among the Bishops of the Church of Rome: from whence he concludes, That Aeon••us should follow the ancient Custom in Or••aining Bishops, and that the New Canon of Anastasius ought not to take pl••ce.

The second Letter written to the same Bishop ought to be plac'd before the former, not only because of the Date, which is written Octob. 30. 499. but also because it is a Citation of the Bishop of Vienna to come and defend his pretended Right, which ought to precede the Judgment given against him which is contain'd in the first Letter. There is also a third Letter on the same Subject written to Avitus Bishop of Vienna, Octob. 13. 501. published in the fifth Tome of the Spicilegium of Luc Dachera, and is there reckon'd the twelfth, wherein he answers that Bishop, and tells him, That the Judgment he had given should be no ways prejudicial to him, if he could prove that the Canon made by his Predecessor was useful, altho it was not regular; because what is done for a just cause is not against the Law, and one may depart from the Rigor of the Law for the Good of the Church, since the Law it self would have excepted such a case if it could have foreseen it; and he adds, That it would be oft-times cruel to adhere to the Letter of the Law, when the strict observation of it is found prejudicial to the Church, because the Laws were made to serve the Church, and not to do it any prejudice. After this he exhorts the Bishop of Vienna to produce his Rea∣sons and Defence in a Letter to himself.

At last in the Year 502 he ended this Difference by confirming the Canon made about this matter by S. Leo, who had subjected Valentia, Tarentasia, Geneva and Grenoble to the Bishop of Vienna, and left the other Churches under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Arles. Caesarius was at Rome when this Ca∣non was made, as appears by the ninth Letter dated Novemb. 13th. in the Year 502. But let us return to the former Letters.

The third is a Letter of Complement to Patricius Liberius upon the Election of a Bishop of Aquileia. It is dated Octob. 15. in the Year 499, but the Date appears to be added: this is the first Letter of the fifth Book of Ennodius, and it may be that he compos'd it for this Pope.

The fourth is not a Letter of Symmachus to Laurentius of Milan, as the Title supposes; but it is the third part of the Rhetorick of Ennodius of Pavia. Any one may be satisfy'd by reading it, that it was never a Letter.

The Letter or Memorial of Caesarius Bishop of Arles, contains four Requests which he made to Pope Symmachus. In the first he remonstrates to him, that among the Gaules the Possessions of the Church were easily alienated, from whence it came to pass, that the Goods design'd for relieving the Necessities of the Poor were daily diminish'd: He prays that this Alienation may be wholly forbidden by the Au∣thority of the Holy See, except what shall be thought convenient to be given to the Monasteries. He requests in the second place, that it may be declar'd also, that the Judges and Governours of Provinces cannot be appointed until they have been try'd a long time before. 3. He desires that it may be forbid∣den to marry the Widows who have wore a Religious Habit for a long time, and the Virgins who have been for many years in Monasteries. 4. He requests that care may be taken to hinder all Canvassing and giving of Bribes for obtaining a Bishoprick.

The Pope answers these Requests in the following Letter of Novemb. 6th, which is the fifth, and says, That altho the Ecclesiastical Canons have provided for these things which he desires, yet it is good to renew them. 1st, Then he forbids the Alienation of the Possessions of the Church by any Contract, and upon any pretence whatsoever; but yet he allows some part of them to be given to Clergy-men, to Monaste∣ries, and to Strangers who are in necessity, provided always, that they shall only enjoy the Profits of them during their Life. 2. He threatens those with the rigor of the Canons who endeavour to pro∣mote themselves to the Priesthood by promising to give away the Possessions of the Church. 3. He or∣dains that Lay-men shall observe the Times appointed by the Canons, before they be promoted to the Priesthood. 4. He declares that he abhors those who ravish Widows or Virgins consecrated to God, and that he condemns even those who marry them, altho they who are married mean well. He or∣dains that such shall be cast ou•• of the Communion of the Church, and he forbids Widows who have liv'd a long while unmarried, and Virgins who have been a considerable time in Monasteries, to marry, 5. He forbids all Sollicitations and Promises which are made for Promotion to a Bishoprick.

The sixth Letter of Symmachus is his Apology, wherein he vindicates himself from the Crimes charg'd upon him by the Emperor Anastasius. In it he writes to this Emperor with great boldness, and shews him, that he ought not to take in ill part his Answer to the Reproaches spoken against him; That if he be consider'd in the quality of Roman Emperor, he ought to hear patiently the Messages of the People, and even of the Barbarians; and if he be consider'd as a Christian Prince, he ought to hear the voice of the Bishop of the Apostolick See: That for his own part he could not dissemble these Ca∣lumnies, altho he ought to bear with them; and that it was even the Interest of the Emperor to have the falshood of them discover'd, that the scandal might be remov'd. He taketh the whole City of Rome to witness, that he was no Manichean, and that he had never warp'd from the Faith he had receiv'd in the Church of Rome since he first left Paganism. He accuses the Emperor in his turn of being an Eu∣tychian, or at least of favouring the Eutychians and communicating with them: He reproves him for despising the Authority of the Holy See, and of the Bishop who was Successor to St. Peter. He main∣tains that his Dignity is higher than that of the Emperor. Let us compare, says he to him, the Dignity of a Bishop with that of an Emperor. There is as great difference between them, as between the things of this Earth, whereof the latter has the administration, and the things of Heaven, whereof the former is the Dispenser. O Prince! you receive Baptism from the Bishop, he gives you the Sacraments, you desire of him Prayers, you wait for his Blessing, and you address your self to him, that you may be put under Penance. In a word, you govern the Affairs of Men, and he dispenses the Blessings of Heaven. Wherefore the Office of a Bishop is at least equal, if not superior to yours. After this he proposes, That as the Emperor would undoubtedly make him lose his Dignity, if he could prove the Articles of Accusation alledg'd against him; So he should hazard the loss of his if he could not prove it. He admonishes him to remember that he is a Man, and that he can no ways avoid the discussion of this Cause before the Tribunal of God; That 'tis true, due respect ought to be paid to Secular Powers, but then they ought not to be obey'd when they desire such things as are contrary to the Laws of God: in fine, That if Obedience is due to Superior Powers, it is chiefly due to those that are Spiritual. Honour God in us, says he, and we will honour him in you; but if you have no respect for God, you cannot claim that priviledge from him whose Laws you despise. You say, adds he, that I have Excommunicated you with the Consent of the Senate; In this I have done nothing but follow'd the righteous Example of my Predecessors. You say that the Senate has evil entreated you: If you think that you are abus'd by exhorting you to separate from Hereticks, can it be said that you would have treated us well, when you would have forc'd us to joyn with Hereticks; You say that what Acacius has done does not at all concern you; If it be so, trouble your self no more about him, joyn no more with his followers. If you do not this, it is not we that Excommunicate you, but your self, by joyning your self to one that is Excommunicated. He concludes with a smart Remonstrance, wherein he exhorts the Emperor to return to the Communion of the Holy See, and to separate from the Enemies of the Truth and the Church.

The seventh Letter is the fourteenth Epistle of the eleventh Book of Ennodius's Letters. It may be he wrote it in the Pope's Name.

The eighth Letter of Symmachus is address'd to the Orientalists, wherein he does earnestly exhort them to suffer all sorts of Persecutions, rather than communicate with the Complices and Followers of Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy, Peter of Foulon and Acacius. This Letter is dated Octob. 8. in the Year 512.

The ninth Letter is a Letter of the Orientalists to Pope Symmachus. They pray him to put an end to that Schism which had now continued many years upon the account of Acacius's Disobedience. They remonstrate to him that their Faith is Orthodox, that they condemn the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, and those of their Followers, that they approve the Council of Chalcedon; That those who separated from the Communion of others upon the account of Acacius's affair, did not take sufficient care of the Flock of Jesus Christ. That on the contrary, those who overlook'd that formality, had made Church∣es for the Publick Good; that both the one and the other are Orthodox, and that he ought not to refuse Communion to either of them. To prove that they were Catholicks in their Judgment, they propose an Exposition of their Faith, wherein they do clearly reject the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychi∣ans.

We have already spoken of the tenth Letter which is the Definitive Sentence that pass'd about the difference between the Churches of Arles and Vienna.

In the eleventh he confirms to the Bishop of Arles, upon the Request of that Bishop presented to him, the Right of Citing the Bishops of Gaul and Spain to the Synods that were necessary to be held for Judg∣ing of Ecclesiastical Matters. He orders him to give an account to the Holy See of those Causes which should want his Authority to determine them.

The twelfth Letter wherein it is suppos'd that Pope Symmachus gave the Pallium to the Bishop of Laurea in Pannonia, appears to me to be a Forgery: It is no where cited; it is taken from a place of little authority; the style is different from that of the other Letters, and does plainly discover that it is very late. In short, it is stuff'd with thoughts so mean and impertinent, that it cannot be attributed to any man of sense. You need only read it to be convinc'd of the Truth of what we say, and that it is a suppositious Piece.

The style of Symmachus's Letters is harsh, but it has smartness and vehemence.

AVITUS Bishop of Vienna. * 1.2

SExtus Alcimus Ecditius Avitus Son to the Senator Isychius, and Brother to Apollinaris Bishop of Valen∣tia, was promoted in the beginning of the Sixth Century to the Episcopal See of the Church of Vienna, which his Father had also governed for some years. This Bishop laboured very much in the Conversion of the Arians, held many Conferences with Gondeband King of the Burgundians who was an Arian, converted his Son Sigismond, and vigorously opposed the Hereticks of his time. Dr. Cave says, he converted King, Gondeband to the Catholick Faith, and made him publickly profess it, when he endeavour'd to conceal it from his Subjects, Hist. Lit. p. 372. He wrote also in defence of Pope Sym∣machus, he presided in a Council held at Epaon in 517, he died in 523; he wrote Letters, Sermons and Poems. His Letters are the most curious and most beautiful of all his Works, and they are in number 87.

The first is addrest to Gondeband King of the Burgundians. In it he first explains two places of the Gospel, and takes occasion from the former to remark that the word Mass is used in Churches, in Pa∣laces and Courts, to dismiss the People. Afterward he proves that the Holy Spirit is not a Creature, and that the Breath of Life which God breathed into the first man, is not the very Substance of the Ho∣ly Spirit.

In the second Letter, addressed to the same Prince, he treats of the Incarnation, and opposes the Er∣rors of Nestorius and Eutyches; but he was so ill informed of their History, that he attributes to the lat∣ter the Error of the former, although it be perfectly contrary to his Opinions.

In the following Letter he appears to be no better informed of the Transactions in the East which happened in his own time; for there he accuses the Bishop of Constantinople of having cut off, in the year preceding, these words from the Trisagion, O thou that was crucified for us, have pity upon us; and he defends this Expression as being very ancient. Now it's certain that it was Peter of Foulon who had added these words to the Trisagion a little while before; and the Bishop of Constantinople was so far from cutting them off, that on the contrary he approved this addition, and caused the Trisagion to be sung after this manner; which caused a Tumult in the Church of Constantinople, mention'd by Avitus who is mistaken in attributing the Disorder to the cutting off of these words, which had not happen∣ed but because they were added.

In the fourth Letter he examines two places in the Writings of Faustus Bishop of Regium. One is a∣bout a very short Penance which is done at the point of Death; and the other is about the unprofitable∣ness of Faith without good Works. Avitus maintains, in speaking of the former, That it's false and very harsh to affirm that the Penance which is granted at the point of Death, does not at all profit a man: But he confesses, that if those who have received it relapse afterward into their former Debau∣chery, it was unprofitable to them, and that hereby they render themselves unworthy of the Commu∣nion. Nevertheless he does not think that they can be obliged to renounce altogether the use of Marri∣age. After this he remarks upon the second place of Faustus, That it cannot be said that Faith with∣out Works is altogether unprofitable, since Infants are justified by Faith without Works; and That the Faith of Adult Persons is commonly accompanied with Good Works.

In the sixth Letter addressed to Victorius Bishop of Grenoble, Avitus maintains, That it is never law∣ful for Catholicks to use the Altars, Oratories, or Churches of Hereticks. He procur'd this Prohibition to be made in the Council of Epaon, altho the contrary had been establish'd in the first Council of Or∣leans.

The seventh Letter is written to the Patriarch of Constantinople, wherein he congratulates his Recon∣ciliation to the Bishop of Rome. This Patriarch was John of Cappadocia, who was reconcil'd to Pope Hormisdas in the year 519.

In the eighth Letter he praises Eustorgius Bishop of Milan for his Charity to the Captive Gauls, whom he had caus'd to be redeem'd.

In the ninth he recommends to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, a Foreign Bishop, call'd Maximianus, who was come into his Country to find there an able Physician, who could cure him of a distemper in his eyes wherewith he was afflicted. There are two things remarkable in this Letter; the first is, That a Catholick Bishop, in whatsoever place he is, ought not to pass for a Stranger: the second is, That a Bishop is oblig'd to take care of his health, that he may be capable of discharging his Episcopal Fun∣ction.

The tenth Letter is from Apollinaris Bishop of Valentia, Brother to Avitus, wherein he acquaints him with a Dream which he had in his sleep, on the night of the Anniversary of their Sisters death. He takes this Dream for an Admonition which his Sister gave him that he should do her this service, and informs his Brother of it; who answers him in the next Letter, That he had discharg'd this Duty at Vi∣enna, and that the Fault he committed in forgetting it was very pardonable.

The fourteenth Letter is from Victorius Bishop of Grenoble, who had consulted Avitus his Metropoli∣tan, what he should do as to a Man call'd Vincomalus, who had espous'd the Sister of his Wife deceas'd, and liv'd with her afterwards for many years. He asks Avitus what Penance he should impose upon them, and whether or no he ought to part them. Avitus answers him, That he ought not to suffer this Disorder, but should enjoyn them to part from one another, and also Excommunicate them if they continued

in this way of Living, until they obey'd, and did publick Penance for the Fault. Vincomalus coming after this to wait upon Avitus, endeavour'd to excuse his Fault by the length of time which he had liv'd with this Woman; but Avitus gave him to understand, That this Circumstance did rather aggravate then any ways diminish his Fault, and made him promise to part with this Woman immediately. And after he had extorted this Promise from him, he wrote to Victorius, that he should dissolve this unhappy Marriage by an innocent Divorce, that nevertheless he should punish this Man according to the utmost rigor of the Canons; and in the mean time he should not altogether trust his Word, nor pardon him but upon the Security of those who had interceded for him: That he should advise him to do Penance, but not impose it upon him against his will.

The seventeenth Letter is address'd to the Priest Viventiolus, who was afterwards Bishop of Lyons. He exhorts him to take upon him the Government of the Monastery of St. Claude, and wishes him a higher Preferment. This Letter is without an end, and the next is without a beginning; it may be there were some between them which are wholly lost. 'Tis not known to whom the last is written: Father Sirmondus thinks that it is to Pope Symmachus. He tells him, That altho there be some Reliques of the Holy Cross, yet he ought to desire them of the Bishop of Jerusalem, who keeps this precious Depositum in its purity.

The nineteenth is a short Note from King Gondebaud to Avitus, wherein he puts a Question to him about two passages in Scripture. Avitus answers him in the twentieth Letter.

The one and twentieth is addressed to Sigismond the Son of Gondebaud, wherein he speaks of a Con∣ference which he had with his Father about Religion.

In the three and twentieth Avitus thanks the Bishop of Jerusalem for the Reliques of the Holy Cross which he had sent into his Country. This Letter begins with this fine Complement. Your Apostolical Eminence exercises the Primacy which God has granted you, and means to show, not only by his Prerogatives, but also by his Merits, that he holds the first place in the Universal Church. Some may think that this Letter is address'd to the Bishop of Rome, but the Title and Body of the Letter do plainly discover that it is to the Bishop of Jerusalem.

The four and twentieth Letter is address'd to Stephen Bishop of Lyons, about a Donatist who was in his Country. Avitus advises him to labour after the Conversion of this Man, to hinder this Error from taking root among the Gauls; and acquaints him, That he ought to receive this Donatist by Imposition of Hands, since it is certain that he had received the Unction of the holy Chrysm with Baptism. In the Churches of the Gauls they made use sometimes of Chrysm to receive Hereticks, as appears by ma∣ny Examples related by Gregory of Tours. But probably it was not us'd, save only to those who had not receiv'd it at their Baptism, as this passage of Avitus invincibly proves.

In the five and twentieth Letter he promises his Brother Apollinaris, to be present at the Dedication of a Church, and commends the charitable Gifts that were design'd for the Poor at this Feast.

The six and twentieth Letter is address'd to a Bishop whose Name is not known. Avitus rebukes him for his easiness in discovering our Mysteries to the Enemies of Religion. He proves afterwards that an Heretical Bishop, who is converted, may be promoted to the Dignity of the Priesthood in the Church, provided there be nothing in his Life or Manners which hinders it. For why, says he, may not he govern the Flock of Jesus Christ, who has acknowledg'd that the Sheep which he fed were not the Sheep of Jesus Christ? Why may not he be promoted to the Priesthood among us, who has quitted that which he had for love of the Truth? Let him become of a Lay-man a true Bishop, who of a false Bishop which he was, was willing to become a Lay-man.

The following Letter was written by Avitus under the Name of King Sigismond to Pope Symmachus. It is an acknowledgment which he made to the Pope for the Reliques he had sent him, praying him at the same time to give him some other Reliques. This Letter is fill'd with high Complements to the Pope, to whom he gives the Title of Bishop of the Universal Church.

In the eight and twentieth Letter address'd to King Gondebaud, he proves by express places of Scrip∣ture, That Jesus Christ did subsist in his Divinity before he was made Man. Florus the Deacon call'd this Letter a Treatise of Divinity.

The one and thirtieth Letter to Faustus and Symmachus, who were the two chief Senators of Rome, was written by Avitus in the Name of the Bishops of France on the behalf of Pope Symmachus, who had been acquitted in a Synod held at Rome by the order of Theodoric King of Italy. Avitus takes it very ill, that a Council had undertaken to judge the Pope. He maintains that the Bishops ought to as∣sist, but not judge him, because there is neither Law nor Reasons which allows Inferiours to judge him who is above them: And he adds, That if any call in question the validity of the Ordination of one Pope, it would seem that not the Bishop but Episcopacy it self were in danger; At si Papa Urbis Romae vocatur in dubium, Episcopatus jam videbitur, non Episcopus, vacillare. 'Tis difficult to understand what Avitus means by this, for what if one Pope fall into Idolatry or Heresie; if he become a Symoniack, and commit many enormous Crimes, is the Apostolick See ever the less worthy of Honour upon that account? May not this Pope be reformed without endangering Episcopacy? Avitus did not sufficiently reflect upon what he said, and the Honour which he had for the Holy See, made him propose such Ma∣xims as are not only very difficult to prove, but which are even confuted by the authentick Examples of Antiquity.

Avitus testifies also his respect for the Pope in the six and thirtieth Letter, to Senarius a Minister of King Theodoric, where he says, That the Laws of Synods enjoyn the Bishops to have recourse to the Bishop of Rome, as Members to their Head, in those things which concern the state of the Catholick Church; that

therefore he had written to Pope Hormisdas to know the success of his Embassy into the East, and did wait for his Answer about it. He prays Senarius also to communicate to him the Particulars of that Affair. In the next Letter he desires of Peter Bishop of Ravenna to know what News there is.

The Letter which he wrote upon this Subject to Pope Hormisdas is among the Letters of this Pope. Father Sirmondus hath plac'd it in the last place among Avitus's and subjoyned an Answer to it; where∣by it appears that Hormisdas was not satisfy'd with the Greeks. We shall speak more of this when we come to give an account of the Life and Letters of this Pope.

In the eight and thirtieth Letter Avitus speaks of one of his Writings which he had found again, and dedicates it to Apollinaris the Son of the famous Sidonius.

The nine and thirtieth is written to King Gondebaud about a Slave who had detain'd a Depositum. Avitus had removed the cause from the Church of Vienna to that of Lyons, where Process should have been made against him. This Slave confest that he had this Depositum, but he accused Avitus of bid∣ding him detain it. Avitus purged himself of this Accusation with much Modesty and Submission, te∣stifying to the King, that he was ready to do whatsoever he would. The small Possessions, says he, which belong to my Church, and even those which belong to all our Churches, are at your service, 'tis you that have given or preserved them to us.

The one and fortieth Letter to King Clouis is very remarkable. Aritus congratulates this King upon his Baptism, and describes the pomp and advantages of it. This Letter informs us that he was bapti∣zed on Christmas night.

In the nine and fortieth Letter he speaks boldly against a Man who hath deflowr'd a Maid, and de∣clares that he could not receive him until he had done Penance; that it was in vain for him to threaten that he would cite him to Rome, and accuse him of having Children; for this threatning should not any ways hinder him in doing his duty. He adds, That if he does not submit to a voluntary Penance, he shall be cast into Prison, and not be suffered any longer to live so licenciously.

There is nothing very remarkable in the other Letters of Avitus: they are for the most part written to invite Bishops to be present at some Festival Solemnity.

Avitus had composed many Homilies whereof he himself made a Collection; but there is none of them remaining, except one entire Homily upon the Rogation days. In it he relates the Origine and In∣stitution of this Solemnity. The Province of Vienna being afflicted by Earthquakes and continual Tem∣pests, and the Fire taking hold of the great Church on Easter-Eve, St. Mamertus stopt it by his Pray∣ers, and from thence he took occasion to appoint these Rogation-days, for giving thanks to God, and pre∣venting the like Calamities for the future. He chose for this Solemnity three days between Easter and Ascension, and made solemn Processions on these days. The other Churches of the Gauls followed the example of the Church of Vienna, and used Prayers at the same time, and after the same manner. Avitus reckons it to be one of the greatest Advantages of this Institution, that then all the faithful joyn'd together to bewail their sins, and to beg pardon of the Lord. He composed also other Homilies upon the Rogation-days, whereof we have not now so much as any extracts. Father Sirmondus relates af∣terwards the Titles of eight Sermons of Avitus which were preach'd at the Dedications of Churches, and are taken from an ancient Manuscript of the Bibliothick of Mr. de Thou, where are also some Fragments to be seen. He hath also found in Gregory of Tours and Agobardus some Extracts of the Conference of Avitus with King Gondebaud; but the most considerable Fragments of the Works of this Author, are those which he hath taken from the Explication of St. Paul's Epistles written by Florus a Deacon of the Church of Lyons.

The Works from which these Fragments were taken are the Books against the Arians, and against those who say that the Flesh of Christ was nothing but a Phantism, two Sermons upon Easter, three Sermons upon the three Rogation-days, one Sermon upon the Ascension of Christ, one upon Whitsunday, one upon the Cup of the Lord's Supper, a Discourse upon the Creed, a Sermon upon the Ordination of a Bishop, a Homily upon Jonas, another upon the Ascension of Elias, one upon the Passion of Jesus Christ, a Sermon at the Dedication of the Church of St. Michael, and a Sermon upon King Eze∣chias.

Avitus composed also many pieces in Verse, but he himself could not find them to make a Collection of them, as he testifies in his Letter to Apollinaris; so that he could only publish the five Poems which he had made upon the History of Moses; viz. upon the Creation of the World, upon the Fall of Man, upon the Sentence which God pronounced against him, upon the Deluge, and upon the Passage through the Red-Sea: To which he added afterwards a Poem in Praise of Virginity, address'd to his Sister. There are also found in the Bibliothicks other Poems upon the Continuation of the History of the Old Testament, which go under the Name of Avitus, and may well enough be his, although Gregory of Touris, and St. Isidore of Sevil mention only six Poems which we now have. Howsoever this be, these Works are neither beautiful nor useful.

The style of Avitus is harsh, obscure and intricate. He had Wit enough, but little of greatness and elevation of Mind; he was moderately Learned, and never fail'd as to his Integrity and good Intenti∣ons.

The Poems of Avitus have been already, printed by themselves at Francfurt in 1507 at Collin and Pa∣ris in 1508. and 1509. at Lyons in 1536. and in the Bibliothicks of the Fathers; but Father Sirmondus is the first who published his other Works. He caused them to be printed at Paris by Cramoisy in 1643. with Notes well worth the reading.

Since this time Luc d'Achery hath publish'd, in the fifth Tomb of his Spicilegium, the Conference which Avitus had with the Arian Bishops in the presence of King Gondebaud. Here follow the Con∣tents * 1.3 of it: Avitus Bishop of Vienna, Aeonius of Arles, Apollinaris of Marseilles, the Bishop of Va∣lentia, and some others, being present at the Feast of St. Justus, to which they had been invited by Stephen, went from thence to the Court of King Gondebaud, at Sabiniacum. Avitus propos'd to him a Conference with the Arian Bishops. The King told him with a stern Countenance, If your Reli∣gion be good, why do not you hinder the King of the Franks, your Soveraign, from making War upon me. Avitus answer'd, That he did not know the Reasons which his Prince had to make War upon him; butif he would submit to the Law of God, he did not doubt to obtain a Peace for him. The King answer'd, That he did acknowledge the Law of God, but he would not acknowledge three Gods. Avitus gave him to understand, that the Catholicks do not acknowledge but one God only; and then he fell prostrate at his Feet. The next day the King told them, That his Bishops were ready to enter into a Conference with them; but that it must not be held before the People, but only in his presence, and before such Sena∣tors as he should choose. To Morrow is appointed for the day. The same Night the Lessons were read which mention'd the hardning of Pharaoh's heart, and of the Jews, which was a bad Omen. When the time for the Conference was come, the Bishops of both Parties were present at the Place appointed. Avitus explain'd the Faith of the Church about the Mystery of the Trinity, and prov'd it by Testimonies of the Holy Scripture. Boniface being the Arian Bishop that was to speak, an∣swer'd nothing to Avitus's Discourse, but only propos'd many subtil and entangling Questions about the Mystery of the Trinity, and then broke forth into reproachful Language. The King respited the Answer of Boniface till to morrow. An Officer call'd Aredius, would have perswaded the Catho∣licks to retire, telling them, That this sort of Conferences did nothing but exasperate mens minds. Bi∣shop Stephen answer'd him, That on the contrary, it was the only means to clear up the truth, and to reconcile men to one another, and bring them to a good understanding. But notwithstanding this Admonition, the Catholick Bishops entred into the Place. King Gondebaud seeing them, came to meet them, and spoke reproachfully of the King of the Franks, whom he accused of solliciting his Brother against him. The Bishops answer'd him, That the way to make Peace was to agree about the Faith, and that they themselves would be Mediators for it; and then every one took his place. Avitus being desirous to wipe off the Calumnies of Boniface, who had accus'd the Catholiks of worship∣ping many Gods, prov'd that the Catholicks acknowledg'd one God only. Boniface instead of an∣swering, continued still to reproach them. The King seeing that this would not put an end to the difference, rose up with indignation. Avitus insisted, that he should either answer his Reasons, or yield: But to shew clearly on whose side the Truth was, he propos'd, That he should go immedi∣ately to the Monument of St. Justus, and ask the Saint about the truth of the one and the other's Belief, and then report what he had said. The King approv'd this Proposal, but the Arians refus'd it, saying, They would not do as Saul did, who had recourse to Charms and Divination, that the Scrip∣ture was sufficient for them, which was much more powerful then all other means. The King going away, carried with him to his Chamber Stephen and Avitus, and bidding them farewel, he embraced them, and intreated them to pray to God for him: Which discover'd to them, says the Author of this Relation, what a perplexity he was in. But because the heavenly Father had not drawn him, he could not come to the Son, that this word of truth might be fulfill'd, 'Tis not he that willeth, nor he that runneth, but God that sheweth mercy. After this day many Arians were converted, and baptiz'd some days after, and God exalted our Faith by the Intercession of St. Justus. These are the very words of the Acts of this Conference.

ENNODIUS Bishop of PAVIA.

MAgnus Felix Ennodius, descended of an illustrious Family among the Gauls a 1.4, was born in Italy b 1.5, in the Year 473 c 1.6. Having lost at the Age of Sixteen an Aunt, who gave him Maintenance and Education, he was reduc'd to low Circumstances in the World, but by marriage to a rich Fortune he was restor'd to a plentiful Estate. He enjoy'd for some time the Advantages and Pleasures which Riches afford, but knowing the danger of them, he resolv'd to lead a more Christian Life. He entred into Orders with the consent of his wife, who for her part embrac'd a chast and religious Life. 'Twas at this time that he became famous for his Letters and other Writings. He was chosen to make a Panegyrick upon King Theodoric, and undertook the Defence of the Council

of Rome which acquitted Pope Symmachus. For his Merits he was promoted to the See of Pavia about the Year 510 d 1.7. After this he was made choice of to endeavour the Re-union of the Eastern to the Western Church: Upon which occasion he made two Journeys into the East; the first in the Year 515, with Fortunatus Bishop of Catana, and the second in 517, with Peregrinus Bishop of Misena. These Journeys had not the success which he desir'd, but they discover'd his Prudence and Courage: For the Emperor Anastasius did all he could to seduce or corrupt him, but not being able to compass his design, after many affronts, at last he caus'd him to put to Sea in an old rotten Ves∣sel, and forbad all persons to suffer him to land at any Port of Greece, whereby he was expos'd to manifest danger. Nevertheless he arriv'd safe in Italy, and return'd to Pavia, where he died a lit∣tle time after, on the first day of August in the Year 521, aged 48 years.

There are many Writings of this Author which have no relation to Ecclesiastical Matters. A∣mong his 297 Letters which are divided into nine Books, there are but very few from whence any weighty observation can be made about the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church. The fourteenth Letter of the second Book is one of this number. It is written to the Christians of Africk, whom he comforts under the Persecution which they had suffer'd for a long time, and the loss of their Bishops. Fear not, says he to them, because you see your selves destitute of Bishops; you have amongst you him who is both the High-Priest and the Sacrifice, who seeketh not honours, but hearts. The Confession of the Martyrs is more honourable than the Episcopal Dignity. Many times favour promotes persons of little merit to the Episcopal Throne, but nothing but Grace can confer the honourable Title of a Confessor. He acquaints them afterwards, that he had sent them the Reliques of the Martyrs S Nazarius and S. Ro∣manus, which they had desir'd. This Letter is among those of Symmachus, and 'tis very probable that it was written by Ennodius in this Pope's name.

The nineteenth Letter of the same Bishop is also remarkable. There he rejects the Opinion of one who had affirm'd that Man has no liberty to choose any thing but evil; he calls this a Schismatical Proposition, and one that borders upon Blasphemy. For what kind of liberty would it be to will no∣thing but what deserves punishment? and how can it be said that one has a choice, when there is but one side to take? If this were so, the Laws of God would be unjust: for how can he oblige us to do good, after he hath taken from us the desire and power to do it? What means then this passage of St. Paul, which gives testimony to free-will; To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not? Is not this the meaning of it: I can choose the good way, but presently I leave it, unless Grace assist me? No body doubts but the Author of Grace opens to us the way of Righteousness by his Assistance; no body condems this Doctrine; for Grace leads good men, and prevents their good actions. 'Tis Jesus Christ that calls us, and invites us to Salvation by his Exhortations, when he says unto us, Come my Children, hearken unto me; but if our Free will does not obey his Admonitions, if our Industry does not follow his Commands, we throw our selves headlong into Hell, without being constrained to it by any necessity. We owe therefore our Vocation to Grace; 'tis Grace that leads us to Life by secret ways, unless we resist it, but 'tis by our own choice that we follow that which is good where it's shew'd unto us. These are the Sentiments of Ennodius about Grace, which come near to those of Faustus and the Priests of Mar∣seilles, and which do not agree with those of St. Augustine and his Disciples.

Although there be some Christian thoughts in the other Letters of Ennodius, yet we have found nothing in them remarkable enough to be related here: His Panegyrick of King Theodoric does not at all concern Ecclesiastical Matters, but only profane History.

His Apology for the Council which acquitted Pope Symmachus, was written by Ennodius against a Paper made by the Enemies of this Pope, entitled, Against the Synod which pronounced an absurd Sentence of Absolution.

This Paper was written with very much Artifice. He opposed the Authority of this Council; 1. Because the King had not summoned all the Bishops, and all those who came there had not con∣sented to this Absolution: he adds, that those who were the Accusers of Symmachus were excluded, and could not be heard, and that those who were at the Synod, had confess'd that they were old and weak. Secondly, Because the Bishops of this Council had not followed the Intention of King Theo∣doric, and durst contest his Right to call a Council. Thirdly, Because this Council had asserted a false Proposition, viz. That there is no remedy for the Disorders of Popes; as if it were one of the Priviledges of the Successors of St. Peter to have an unbounded licence to sin. Fourthly, Be∣cause this Proposition of the Council, That the Pope cannot be judged by his Inferiours, is very dangerous; for if this were so, it were needless to call a Council, and the Council being call'd should not cite the Pope, not bring his Accusers before them; nay, the Pope himself ought not to come there, nor approve the meeting of this Synod as he had done. Fifthly, Because that the Pope, after he had presented himself before the Council to be judged, went away, and would not come there again, although he was cited four times, which was a sign that he had abandoned his Defence. In fine, he says that they could not Absolve him unless he had answer'd the Accusations that were laid to his Charge. Sixthly, Because that this Council had advanced false Doctrine, viz. That the Councils ought to be summoned by the Pope; for, says he, the Provincial Synods which are held

every year without consulting the Pope, are a convincing evidence of the falshood of this Doctrine. Seventhly, Because the King having named a Deligate for the Church of Rome, he had acknowledg'd that the Pope's administration might be reformed, and that he had no reason to complain, since he himself had appointed Delegates for other Churches.

Ennodius answers these Objections with much subtilty: First, That it was not necessary to call all the Bishops to this Synod, and that it was false that those who were not present at it, were against Pope Symmachus; that it was ridiculous to make the Bishops of the Councils pass for Fools and Sots, because they had said they were weak in Body; that they would not hear the Accusers of Symma∣chus, because the Persons produced could not be admitted to give testimony against Bishops accord∣ing to the Canons. Secondly, That the Bishops had reason to declare to King Theodoric, that the Council ought to be call'd by his Authority, because in effect he had this Prerogative. Thirdly, That the Pope had no need of Reformation, because he that was promoted to this Dignity was holy, and God would not suffer, that he who held a place so eminent, should be corrupted. Fourth∣ly, That although in strictness the Pope could not be judged by a Council, yet he had voluntarily subjected himself to its Judgment. Fifthly, That he had not withdrawn himself from it, but be∣cause he could not come to it more freely. Sixthly, That it was true, Provincial Councils might assemble without the consent of the Pope, but not a Council whose business it was to j••dge the Pope himself. Seventhly, That the King was surprized in naming a Delegate, who neglected the chief Duties of Piety in discharging that Office; That the Pope had a right to name one for other Churches, but not to name one for his own, because God would have the Causes of other men de∣termined by the Judgment of Men; but as to the Successors of St. Peter, they are only subject to the Judgment of God. Ennodius concludes his Answers with three Prosopopeia's. In the first he brings in St. Peter speaking, who exhorts the Romans to obey Symmachus, and putan end to the Schism. In the second he brings in St. Paul speaking, who thunders against the Schismaticks. And lastly, Rome Christian comes upon the Stage, who gives also her Suffrage in favour of Symmachus, and for the benefit of Peace. I leave it to others to compare together the Objections and Answers contained in this Apology of Ennodius: But I do not think that there are many who will pass this Proposition, That a Man being promoted to the Papacy becomes holy, and that this Dignity either finds or makes him such. 'Tis a Paradox which may be overthrown by many contrary Examples. Yet Ennodius had no other way to exempt the Pope from the Jurisdiction of a Council, and in effect there is no other way to do it; for it is against Order, that there should be no Remedy to hinder the excesses and exorbitances of the first Bishop of the Church: and therefore if all men be agreed that this way is indefensible, and that the Popes may be corrupted and disorderly, is it not necessary that a Coun∣cil should be able to remedy this Inconvenience; and how can this be done unless it has a Right to judge the Pope?

The Life of St. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavia, and that of St. Anthony Monk of Lerina, contain not any thing very remarkable, no more then the Prayer of Ennodius about himself, or his Eucha∣ristic upon his own Life. The instructive Exhortation written in Prose and Verse, is a Book of Morality about the Vertues and Sciences. In another Book he praises the Canon lately made, viz. That all the Bishops should have a Clergy-man dwelling with them, to be a witness of all their actions, that all occasion of suspicion may be removed. This Canon was indeed new, but the Custom was more ancient. This sort of Clergy-men are called by the Greeks Syncelli, and by Ennodius Cellulani.

Ennodius is also the Author of some Formularies, as of that of the Manumission of Gerontius, Slave to one named Agapetus, and of two Benedictions of Easter Wax-Candles, and of the Prayers before and after Mess.

Among Ennodius's Pieces of Rhetorick, there are six upon Sacred Subjects: The first upon the Day of the Promotion of Laurentius to the Bishoprick of Milan; the second upon the Dedication of a Church of the Apostles; the third upon the Election of a Coadjutor; the fourth upon the Dedi∣cation of a Church; the fifth in behalf of a Bishop who takes possession of his See; the sixth in behalf of the Catholick Councils against the Eastern Hereticks. There is nothing at all remarka∣ble in these Writings. The other Pieces of Rhetorick are upon profane Subjects, as well as all the Epigrams, and the greater part of his Poems: Some Hymns indeed are to be excepted, of which it were needless here to give a Catalogue.

The Style of Ennodius is obscure, yet he has a vigorous and lively Imagination; but his Reason∣ings are not good. Some of his Works had been printed apart, but all of them were collected to∣gether and publish'd by Schottus and Father Sirmondus, who caus'd them to be printed within a year one of another, viz. Schottus at Tournay in 1610. and Father Sirmondus at Paris in 1611. His Editi∣on is very correct, to which he has added Notes that explain the Names and Qualities of the Per∣sons mention'd in Ennodius, and contain many Observations very useful for clearing up the History of that time. At Basil almost all his Works were publish'd amongst the Orthodoxographra, in the Year 1569. Cave Hist. lit. p. 390.

HORMISDAS. * 1.8

POpe Symmachus dying in the Month of July, in the Year 514, some days after Hormisdas was chosen in his Room. His Pontificat, which lasted nine years and some days, was famous for the great Negotiations which he manag'd for the Re•…•…n of the Eastern and Western Churches, which had all the success that could be expected, for the Holy See obtain'd at last of the Greeks the Condemnation of A•…•…, which they had refus'd to grant for so many years before. The Abridg∣ment of his Letters will shew us the series and particulars of that History.

The first is address'd to St. Remegius Archbishop of Rhemes, who had written to him upon his Pro∣motion to the Popedom. He thanks him, and appoints him his Vicar in the Kingdom of Clouis; he empowers him to take care that the Canons be put in execution, and to call Synods of all the Bishops in the Kingdom, as oft as any business should require them to meet. 'Tis plain that this Letter was written by Hormisdas within a little while after his Promotion. Dr. Cave says that this Letter is manifestly supposititious because in it Hormisdas congratulates Clouis, whom he calls Ludovi∣cus, as being lately baptiz'd by Remigius: But Clouis was baptiz'd in the Year 496, and died in the Year 509, at least in 511, before Horsmisdas was made Pope. Hist. Lit. p. 392, 393.

In the same year Vitalianus, General of the Cavalry to the Emperor Anastasius, rose up in Arms against him, and came with his Army towards Constantinople: He made Religion the pretence of his Revolt, and declar'd that he had taken Arms for no other reason but to protect the Catholicks, and to restore Macedonius to the See of Constantinople. The Emperor was forc'd to make Peace with him, upon condition that a Council should be call'd to regulate the Affairs of the Church by the Advice of the Bishop of Rome. This oblig'd the Emperor to write to Pope Hormisdas; to pray him that he would be Mediator for pacifying these Commotions, and that he would labour to restore the Unity of the Church. He observes in this Letter that the harshness of former Popes, his Prede∣cessors, had hindred him from writing to them, but his Reputation for goodness had invited him to have recourse to the See of St. Peter. But the true reason of his doing so, was his own Interest. This Letter was sent Jan. 12. and receiv'd April the 1st, in the Year 515.

In answer to this Letter, the Pope tells him, That he thanks God, who had mov'd the Emperor to write to him, after he had kept silence so long, and that he rejoyc'd in the hope he had to see the Church of Jesus Christ in Peace and Union. He shows how advantageous it will be to the Church, and wishes it may quickly be finish'd. He desires to know for what reason he would have a Council call'd. This Letter, which is the second to Anastasius, is dated April 4th, in the Year 515.

Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica, wrote also to the Pope, exhorting him to labour for the Peace of the Church, and declares to him that he wishes the Hereticks were condemn'd, and that all due Re∣spect and Honour were paid to the Holy See. The Pope in his Answer commends his Zeal, and exhorts him to contribute his endeavours towards the Re union of the Churches. Dorotheus's Letter is plac'd before the third Letter of Hormisdas, which is an Answer to it.

The Emperor design'd precisely the time and place where he would have the Council held, in a particular Letter which he wrote to the Pope, wherein he tells him, That the Council should be held at Heraclea, about some Differences concerning the Faith which were risen in Scythia. He prays him to come there with some Bishops of the Churches committed to his care. This Pope judg'd it not conve∣nient to go to the Council nor to send thither; but he sent as Deputies into the East Ennodius and Fortunatus Bishops, with Venantius a Priest, Vitalis a Deacon, and a Secretary. He gave them a Memorial of Instructions as to what they should do, which contains, That when they came to Greece, if the Bishops came, to meet them, they should receive them; That if they invited them to a Feast they should not go, but answer them, That they must first c•…•…icate at the Holy Table, before they commu∣nicated with them at the ordinary Meals. That they should receive nothing from the Bishops; That when they arriv'd at Constantinople, they should retire whether the Emperor should order them. That they should not suffer themselves to be seen by any body but those that came in his Name. Nevertheless, That after they had Audience of the Emp•…•…, they might receive the Orthodox of their Communion who should come to visit them; That when they presented his Let•…•… to the Emperor, they should tell him, That the Pope his Father saluted him, that be prayed to God every day for him, and recommended his Empire to the Intercessions of St. Pete•• and St. Paul; That they should speak of nothing till the Pope's Letter was read: That after this they should acquaint the Emperor, that they had a Letter to Vitalianus, who had sent two Deputies to the Pope by the permission of the Emperor; That they should not deliver it into the hands of the Emperor, but if he should desire it of them, they should tell him that they had orders to deli∣ver it to none but Vitalianus, and assure him that it contain'd nothing but what concerns the Peace of the Church: That if any one should speak to them of a Council, they should say, that they must hold to the Letter of St. Leo, and the Council of Chalcedon: That in case it were answer'd, that the Eastern Bishops had acknowledg'd them, they should say, Why then do they differ from them? That if they were press'd to communicate with the Emperor, since he had acknowledg'd the Doctrine establish'd in the Council of Chalcedon, they should remonstrate, that they did not decline the Emperor, but pray'd him to procure

the Peace of the Church, by declaring his Sentiments in a Publick Act, and then they should be ready to receive all the Orthodox; That when once this matter was so order'd, the Pope himself would not refuse to be present at a Council, if it were necessary: That if they should be press'd to bear company with the Bishop of Constantinople in his time of waiting, they should answer that they were come for the Peace of the Church; That this was a private business, which should be order'd when the Re-union of the Bi∣shops was finish'd: That they had heard it said, that there were two pretended who pretended to be Bishops of Constantinople: That if the Emperor should tell them, Must I then at the time of waiting be with∣out a Bishop? they should answer, that he might choose one who acknowledg'd the Orthodox Faith, and the Constitutions of the Holy See, so long as this Cause was undecided: That if any Libels of Accusation were given in against some Bishops, these must be reserv'd to the Judgment of the Holy See: That if the Emperor should grant a Declaration acknowledging the Council of Chalcedon, that one of the Deputies should carry it to be sign'd by the Provinces: That they should not suffer themselves to be presented to the Emperor by Timotheus, who held then the See of Constantinople; That if he were present at their Au∣diences they should desire to be heard alone by themselves. After this Memorial follows the Form, in which he would have the Declaration of the Emperor and the Bishops drawn up, the Substance whereof is this, That they receive the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo, and that they Anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus and their followers, as Timotheus Aelurus, Peter Mon∣gus and others, together with Acacius and Peter of Antioch. He gives his Legates also charge to bring to Rome the banish'd Bishops who were accus'd of Heresie, and to desire that those may be restor'd who hold communion with the Holy See, and that the judging of those who had persecuted the Ca∣tholick Bishops might be referred to the Holy See.

The Pope, who had written in the fourth Letter to the Emperor, that he would send Deputies to him, gave them with this Memorial a Letter for the Emperor, wherein he declares to him, That however it were a new thing that the Bishop of Rome should be summon'd to a Council out of his own City, yet he would gladly be present at it, provided that before it were held, the Synod of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo were approv'd, and the Hereticks anathematiz'd. This Letter is the fifth, Dated Aug. 11. 515.

The Emperor receiv'd the Pope's Deputies graciously, and inform'd him by Letter, That they were witnesses of the Orthodoxy of his Faith, assuring him that he received the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo, and did in every thing agree with him, except what concern'd the Anathema pro∣nounc'd against Acacius, which must be suppress'd if he minded to restore Peace and Union between the Eastern and Western Churches. And he did not only write this Letter to the Pope, but he sent him also two Deputies to assure him of the sincerity of his Faith, and the desire he had to procure the Peace of the Church. He wrote also by these Deputies to the Senate, that they would dispose the mind of the King and the Pope to this Re-union.

The Pope wrote back to the Emperor, That he was very much inclin'd to Peace, and exhorted him to conclude it, by causing the Hereticks and Heresie to be condemn'd, without speaking to him of Acacius in particular. But the Senate observ'd to him, that the Condemnation of this Bishop was the only obstacle to Peace. And so it was indeed; for the Orientalists would never pass the Sentence of Condemnation against him, and so the Deputies of the Pope withdrew, without doing any thing. Nevertheless many Bishops of Thrace, Dardania and Pannonia joyn'd with the Pope, but above all John Bishop of Nicopolis, Metropolitan of Epirus, and his Suffragans, who wrote to Hormisdas, and sent a Deputy to him, who should entirely be at his Devotion. He sent back to them a Confessi∣on of Faith which they approv'd. You have here the Letter of this John to the Pope, the Answer of the Pope, which is his fifth Letter, the Synodical Letter of the Council of Epirus, and the An∣swer of the Pope, which is his eighth Letter; another Letter to John of Nicopolis in particular, which is the ninth, with the Confession of Faith, and a Memorial of Instructions given to the Deacon who carried it. Avitus Bishop of Vienna desir'd of the Pope to know the News of the success of this Deputation. The Pope acquaints him with it in his tenth Letter. All this was translated in the Year 516.

Altho the first Deputation of Pope Hormisdas had not the success that was hop'd for, yet he sent a second time to the Emperor the same Ennodius, with Peregrinus Bishop of Misena in Campania. He gave them a Letter wherein he earnestly press'd the Emperor to condemn Acacius, and plainly told him that there was no Peace to be hop'd for without this. His chief reason is, because it is not sufficient to reject the Error, and condemn those that are the Authors of it, but they must also con∣demn their Followers and Abettors. This Letter, which is the eleventh, is dated the third day of April, in the Year 517.

At the same time, and by the same Deputies, he address'd the twelfth Letter to Timotheus, who was possess'd of the See of Constantinople, and the thirteenth to all the Oriental Bishops that were divided from his Communion, exhorting them to do what he desir'd. He wrote also the fourteenth to the Bishops of his Communion, and gives them to understand, that he had sent a second Embassy to labour for a Peace. There is another particular Letter to Possessor a Bishop of Afric, who had been forc'd to retire to Constantinople, which is the fifteenth, wherein Hormisdas praises the constancy of this Bishop. And in the sixteenth Letter, sent at the same time, he exhorts the People, Monks, and the Clergy of Constantinople, to separate from the Hereticks. These Letters are all of one and the same Date.

After the departure of E•…•…odius and Peregrinus, there came a Deacon from the Church of Nico∣polis, to acquaint the Pope. That the Bishop of Thessalonica was very angry with the Bishop of Nico∣polis, for writing to the Pope and persecuted him cruelly, because he had not written to him upon his Ordination; who pray'd the Pope to settle this Affair, or else he would be forc'd to write to him. The Pope wrote to his Deputies that they should assist this Bishop, and sent them also a Me∣morial of the Method they should use for that end, when they arriv'd at Thessalonica. He wrote also to the Emperor, recommending to him John of Nicopolis, and exhorted this Bishop to suffer with constancy, and reprov'd sharply Dorotheus of Thessalonica for using him after this manner. These Letters are the 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22th, all dated April 12. in the Year 517.

At the same time the Emperor wrote a note to the Pope, wherein he complain'd of his being too inflexible. On the other side the Monks of the second Province of Syria complain'd to the Pope that the Emperor suffer'd the Eutychians to abuse them and begg'd his assistance in a Petition sign'd by them all. The Pope in his Answer comforts them, and exhorts them to persevere in suffering for the Faith. This is the three and twentieth Letter which is in Greek and Latin in the Council of Constantinople held under Mennas.

The 24th and 25th Letters concern another Affair. John Bishop of Terragona had come into Ita∣ly, and desir'd of the Pope some Orders for the Churches of Spain. The Pope sent him a Circular Letter, and appointed him his Vicar in Spain, to see the Canons put in Execution there, and to give an account to the Holy See of the Ecclesiastical Affairs of that Kingdom, but without encroach∣ing upon the Rights of Metropolitans. The Orders contain'd in the Letter to the Bishops of Spain are, 1. That none of the Laity should be ordain'd Bishops unless they continued the due time among the Clergy. 2. That Ordinations should be neither bought nor sold. 3. That Provincial Councils should be held twice in a year, or at least once. These two Letters are rather of the year 517. than the year 521.

In the 26th Letter Hormisdas appoints Salustius, Bishop of Sevil, his Vicar in the Province of Reti∣ca and in Portugal, and gives him power to call together the Bishops of these Provinces, to determine their Differences, and to see the Canons observ'd, upon condition that he should give notice to the Holy See of every thing that he should order.

The Emperor Justinius, who succeeded Anastasius in the year 518, immediately acquainted the Pope with the News of his Exaltation, and the Pope return'd him a very civil Answer, signifying to him, That he doubted not but the Peace of the Church would be restor'd under his Reign. And indeed the Emperor set about it presently, and wrote to the Pope, That the Bishop of Constantinople, and the other Eastern Bishops, had held a Synod at Constantinople, and declar'd unto him, that they earnest∣ly desir'd to be remitted to the Western Church, and that he thought it would be convenient for the Pope to send Legats into the East for concluding a Peace.

The Pope commends the Zeal of this Prince for Peace, but withal tells him that it could not be concluded, unless the Name of Acacius were expung'd out of the List of Catholick Bishops.

John Bishop of Constantinople had already sent a Confession of Faith, wherein he acknowledg'd the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon; but the Pope was not satisfy'd with it, and refused to re∣ceive him into his Communion, until he should rase the Name of Acacius out of the Dyptichs.

In the Year 519, the Pope sent a third time his Legats into the East, but with a strict Charge that they should conclude no Treaty of Peace, unless the Memory of Acacius were condemn'd. There were five Legats, two Bishops, Germanus Bishop of Capua and John, one Priest call'd Blan∣dus, and two Deacons, Felix and Dioscorus. He sent by them many Letters address'd to the Em∣peror, to Justinian, to John Bishop of Constantinople, to the Clergy, and to the People of that City, to the Empress, and to the Principal Officers of the Emperor. These are the Letters from the 30th to the 41th. These Legates were well receiv'd in the East, and John of Constantinople did all that they desir'd, in condemning Acacius by a Writing. The Bishop of Thessalonica and the Bishops of his Patriarchate follow'd his Example. The Pope understanding this, received them into his Communion, and testify'd his Joy upon this occasion, and exhorted him to cause the Bishops of A∣lexandria and Antioch to do as much, and desir'd the Restauration of three Bishops, who had been depos'd and turn'd out of the Churches, because they were the first who return'd to the Communion of the Roman Church. In the mean time the Bishop of Thessalonica altered his Resolution, and would not afterwards sign the Confession of Faith that was brought from the West, nor the Con∣demnation of Acacius. But on the contrary publish'd his Resentment against John of * 1.9 Constanti∣nople so far, that he stirr'd up the People to fall upon him, who wounded him so grievously, that he died of his wounds. There were also some Commotions at Ephesus, but the Emperor pacify'd them. And in order to the Re-union of the Church of Antioch, he caus'd a Priest, call'd Paul, to be chosen Bishop of that See, who had been ordain'd at Constantinople: But the Monks of Scythia, who would have it affirm'd, That one of the Persons of the Trinity was crucify'd, went to Rome, to maintain their Proposition there, which they could not make the Pope's Legates relish well. Hor∣misdas detain'd the Monks for some time, but afterwards he drove them out of Rome. Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica, who had caus'd John of Nicopolis to be kill'd, was seiz'd; and the Pope's Legates desir'd that he might be sent to Rome to be judg'd there, but he was carried to Heraclea, from whence he was suffer'd to go away. He wrote afterwards to the Pope in his own Vindicati∣on; but the Pope order'd him to come to Rome that his Cause might be examin'd there. As to the

three other Bishops for whom the Pope had written, Justinian answer'd, That as to Elias, he could not be restor'd, as long as he was living who had been Ordain'd in his room; but as to Thomas and Nico∣stratus, * 1.10 they should be restor'd whenever the Peace was fully concluded. John of Constantinople being dead, one nam'd Epiphanius was chosen in his room in the Year 520, who was Ordain'd according to Custom by the neighbouring Bishops. They gave notice to the Pope of it, who approv'd his Ordination, but complain'd that they had neither written, nor sent Deputies to him; as also that they had not restor'd the three Bishops for whom he had interceded. Epiphanius presently satisfy'd the Pope, by writing to him an Account of his Faith, and assuring him that he agreed in all things with the Roman Church. He wrote also another Letter to him, and sent him a Chalice of Gold a∣dorn'd with precious Stones, a Patten, and another Chalice of Silver and two Veils. There re∣main'd only two things which hindred a perfect Peace; The first was the question, Whether it might be said, that One Person of the Trinity was crucify'd; and the second was the Opposition which the Clergy of the East made to the Condemnation of some of their Bishops. The Emperor Justinus wrote about it to the Pope, and sent him the Petition that had been presented to him by the Clergy of Jerusalem and Antioch. He declar'd also to the Pope, that he wish'd he would not condemn this Proposition, One Person of the Trinity was crucified, and that he would be satisfy'd with expung∣ing the Name of Acacius out of the Dyptichs, and not desire that it should also be ras'd out from among the Bishops who had communicated with him. The Pope did not clearly explain his mind, neither about the one nor the other of these Propositions, being afraid of proceeding too far. In the mean time Paul of Antioch, who was an Enemy to this Proposition, One Person of the Trinity was crucified, having displeas'd the People of his Church, and being accus'd of many Crimes, was forc'd to abdicate his Bishoprick; and the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople inform'd the Pope of it. This is an Abridgment of the subject matter of the Letters of Hormisdas, and the other Pieces which are joyn'd with them. There are reckon'd in all eighty Letters of this Pope. There is some∣thing remarkable in the 70th Letter written to Possessor a Bishop of Africk, which I could not ob∣serve before, because it has no Relation to the Affairs of the East. It concerns the Writings of Fau∣stus of Ries, about which he had been consulted by the Bishop to whom he writes. He answers him, That those Writings are not receiv'd no more than the Writings of other Authors who are not rank'd among the Fathers. That the Catholick Doctrines, and the number of Books authoriz'd, was de∣scribed by the Holy Fathers, to prevent any one from giving his Opinion according to his Fancy. That it was needless to handle such Questions as were not of the number of those which the Church had decided, and that our Faith ought to be bounded by the Dogmes contain'd in the Canonical Books, in the Synodi∣cal Decisions, and in the Doctrine taught by the Fathers. These are the Principles truly Theological which are well noted by this Pope. After this Remark, there is a kind of an Addition and Ex∣ception, Nevertheless, says he, if you would know what the Church of Rome, i. e. the Catholick Church, teaches and believes concerning Grace and Free-will, altho it may be learn'd from divers Writings of St. Austin, and chiefly from his Letter to Hilary and Prosper: Nevertheless, there are some formal Heads about it in the Archives of our Church, which I will send you if you have them not, and which you should believe as necessary, altho it is easie to learn what one ought to believe about it, by reflecting upon the words of the Apostle St. Paul.

Hormisdas had a great deal of prudence, boldness, and policy; His Letters are well enough writ∣ten, altho they smell of the Barbarisms of his Age. His Epistles are printed Concil. 12. Tom. 4. p. 1291. Cave Hist. Lit. p. 379.

St. FULGENTIUS.

GOrdianus a Senator of Carthage, being forc'd to fly into Italy for safety, during the Persecution of Gensericus King of the Vandals, bad two Children who return'd into Africk: And they being forc'd away from Carthage, settled at Telepta, a City in the Province of Byzacena. One of them call'd Claudius was the Father of St. Fulgentius, who was born about the Year 464; his Mother, call'd Mariana, by good luck continued a Widow, and put her Son to learn Greek, who became very skilful in that Tongue. Assoon as he was capable of an Employ, he was made Procurator, or Re∣ceiver of the Revenues of his Province. But this Employment displeas'd him, because of the rigor he was forc'd to use, for levying the Taxes upon the People, and therefore he resolv'd to retire from the World, and lead a Religious Life. This Design he communicated to a holy Bishop call'd Faustus, who had withdrawn from a Monastery near his Bishoprick; and he put it in execution, notwithstanding the tears and dissuasives of his Mother. He put himself under the discipline of this good Bishop, but the Persecution parting them, he went into another Monastery, where there was an Abbot call'd Felix, who made him his Collegue. The Incursions of the Moors scatter'd the Reli∣gious of this Monastery, and they retir'd into the Country of Sicca, thinking to find there a place of Refuge; but an Arian Priest, call'd Felix, caus'd the Abbot Felix and St. Fulgentius to be im∣prison'd, and would not allow them their liberty until their Bodies were torn with whips. St. Ful∣gentius

took then a Resolution to go into Egypt, to improve himself by the example of the Monks of that Country; and having embark'd upon this de••ign, he arriv'd at Syracuse, where the Bishop Eulalius dissuaded him from making this Voyage, because the Monks of the East had separated from the Communion of Rome. He cons••••••ed also a Bishop of Africk, who had retir'd into Sicily who advis'd him to return to his own Country, after he had made a Journey to Rome.

King Theodorick was then in the City, when he arriv'd there, which was in the Year 500. After he had paid his Devoirs to the Sepulchres of the Apostles, he return'd into his own Country, where he built a Monastery.

Afric was then under the Dominion of Thrasimond King of the Vandals, and Arian and a cruel Ene∣my to the Catholicks. He had forbidden to Ordain Catholick Bishops in the room of those that died; but the Bishops of Africk had taken up a Resolution to Ordain them in spight of the Prince's Prohibition. St. Fulgentius knowing this, and fearing least he should be Ordain'd, hid himself till such time as he understood that the Ordinations were over. But when he appear'd the Bishoprick of Ruspa was vacant, and he was Ordain'd Bishop of that See against his will in the Year 504, or 508. Being made Bishop, he chang'd neither his Habit nor manner of Living, but us'd the same Austerities or Abstineace as before; he still lov'd the Monks, and delighted to retire into a Mona∣stery, when the discharge of his Sacerdotal Function allow'd him any time of respite. Afterwards he had the same Fate with all the Catholick Bishops of Africk, whom King Thrasimond banish'd in∣to the Isle of Sardinia. Altho he was not the most ancient among them, yet he was consider'd as their Head; for they made use of his Pen and his Wit for writing and taking Resolutions. So great was his Reputation, that King Thrasimon•• had the Curiosity to see and hear him; and having sent for him to Carthage, he propos'd to him a great many Difficulties, which he resolv'd in such a man∣ner as satisfy'd the King: But because he confirm'd the Catholicks, and converted many Arians, their Bishop at Carthage pray'd the King to send him back again to Sardinia. Thrasimond dying in the Year 522, his Son Hildericus recall'd the Catholick Bishops, whereof St. Fulgentius was one, at whose return there was great Joy. He return'd to his Bishoprick, govern'd his Clergy, admitted many Monks into Orders, and continued to lead an Exemplary Life. At this time he gave an ex∣cellent example of Humility, in refusing to be preferr'd before a Bishop who said he was more ancient then Fulgentius, altho this preference was approv'd in a Council. He died the last day of the Year 529, according to some, or 533, according to others.

The first Treatise of St. Fulgentius, according to order of time, is an Answer to ten Objections of the Arians. Probably he wrote it at the time when he was at Carthage, by the Order of King Thra∣simond, in answer to the Objections which the Arians propos'd against the Eternity and Equality of the Son. The Objections are short, obscure, and ill-digested; on the contrary the Answers are long and methodical.

The three Books to King Thrasimond he compos'd about the same time, in Answer to a long Dis∣course which this King had sent him by one of his Officers, who had orders to withdraw immedi∣ately, and desire of him an Answer. When the King press'd him to answer it, without returning it back to him, altho he had scarce leisure to run over some pages of it, yet he refuted in three Books what he could remember of it. In the first he proves, that there are in Jesus Christ two per∣fect Natures united into one Person; and chiefly he endeavours to refute that Error of the Arians, whereby they affirm'd, that Jesus Christ had no Soul, but the Divinity to him supplied the place of one. In the second he proves the Immensity of the Son of God. In the last he returns to the Mystery of the Incarnation, and shows the union and reality of the two Natures in One Person only; and he explains the difficulties which may be started about the terms that he uses to express this Uni∣on.

This Discourse was refuted by an Arian Bishop nam'd Pinta; but St. Fulgentius presently wrote an Answer against him, wherein he show'd, says the Author of his Life, That his Adversaries were overthrown by his first Discourse, and that the Objections they made against him were vain. We have a Writing which goes under the Name of St. Fulgentius, and under the Title of an Answer to Pinta; but the Criticks observe that it is none of St. Fulgentius's. For, 1. The Treatise which this Author opposes is not an Answer to three Books of St. Fulgentius, which he address'd to King Thrasimond, but quite another Work. 2. The name of Pinta is not found in any part of the Book. 3. The Style is different from that of St. Fulgentius. 4. He makes use of another Version of the Bible. 5. It appears that the Author of this Treatise was not well skill'd in Greek, since he says, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies unus; but St. Fulgentius, who was perfectly Master of this Tongue, could not be guilty of so gross a fault.

St. Fulgentius being sent back to Sardinia, he composed there three Books in Answer to the Que∣stions of his Friend Monimus: The first was concerning the Opinion of St. Austin of the Predesti∣nation of God to Evil, or Damnation. St. Fulgentius explains this in the whole first Book, where he makes it appear, that according to the passages of Scripture, and the Opinion of St. Austin, God does not predestinate bad men to Evil or Sin, since he predestinates them only to what they should do, but that he predestinates them to the Pain or Punishment which they had deserv'd by their sins: That he prevents good men to save them, but as to the wicked, he finds them worthy of Damna∣tion from themselves: That the beginning of the Vocation, Justification, and Glorification of the Elect, are the effects of Predestination; but the same cannot be said of the sins of the Reprobrate

which he foresees, but does not predestinate; but after he has foreseen them, he predestinates the Punishment that is to follow them.

The second Question of Monimus, is concerning the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, viz. Whether it be offer'd to God the Father only, as some of the Fathers seem'd to affirm. This furnish'd an Argument to the Arians, who endeavour'd to prove by it, that Jesus Christ is not God. In refuting them, St. Fulgentius proves at the beginning of the second Book, that the Sacrifices of the Old and New Testament were offer'd to the Son and Holy Spirit as well as to the Father, and that altho the Father only is nam'd, yet all the Trinity ought to be comprehended under his Name. Afterwards he explains a third Question, How the Mission of the Holy Ghost is desir'd to consummate that Sacrifice which is offer'd to the whole Trinity. And first he shows that the mission of the Holy Ghost is not contrary to his Immensity; that oft-times under the Name of the Holy Spirit is to be understood his Gifts, and the effects which he produces, and not his Person: That when at the Sa∣crifice of the Mess the Holy Spirit is desir'd to descend, then we pray for Charity, Peace and Uni∣on, which are the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the whole Trinity.

The last Question of Monimus is about the Explication of what St. Paul says, That Virginity is a matter of Counsel, and not of Command; and about Fulgentius's comparing it to the two pence of Su∣pererogation. Upon this Subject he relates the different Opinions of St. Ambrose, St. Austin and Op∣tatus, and shows that it is a matter of small importance, after what manner the two pence of Super∣erogation be understood.

In the last Book he treats of the true sense of these words, The Word was with God, and answers the impertinent Difficulties which the Arians started about this passage.

The Books about Remission of Sins, are in answer to another Question propos'd to St. Fulgentius by Euthymius; viz. Who those are to whom God pardons sins in this life, and whether he pardons them only in this life. St. Fulgentius shows in the first Book, That none can obtain remission of sins, nor be saved, who is out of the Church, and that none of those who are in the Church can obtain par∣don, unless he be truly Converted, and cease to commit sin, and to love the Creature, so as to set his heart upon it.

In the second Book he proves by many Reasons founded upon passages of the Holy Scripture, That there is no remission of sins to be obtained but in this life, and that all those who dye in a bad estate, shall be damned without any mercy: Which gives us to understand that he speaks only of mortal sins which deserve damnation.

But Fulgentius's words are general, That all those who dye in a bad estate shall be damn'd; which will not admit of this distinction, but do plainly overthrow the Doctrine of Purgatory: for what∣ever a man's sins be in which he dies unrepented of and unpardon'd, he dies in a bad estate. But Fulgentius could not have said, that every one who dies in this state shall be damn'd without mercy, had he believ'd a Purgatory, into which many are thrown, who die in a bad estate, for their venial sins unpardon'd. And this general sense of the words is confirm'd by what he says, in his Treatise of Faith address'd to Peter, That there is no state wherein a man can deserve well, but only during this life; and, That those who die in a good state shall be happy for ever, and others, i. e. (those who die in a bad estate) shall be condemn'd to eternal punishment; where he plainly asserts two different states only after this Life, without any mention of a third, which is now believed to be Purgatory by the Roman Church. And to the same purpose he tells us in his Answer to the Questions propos'd by Ferrandus, That it is unprofitable to baptize the dead, because the Soul cannot obtain remission of its sins after it is gone out of the Body, and Flesh alone is not capable of sin; which Argument were of no force, if the Soul might obtain after this Life remission of venial sins by the Pains of Purgatory; for then it might be profitable to baptize the Dead for obtaining the pardon of these sins, and deliver∣ing Souls out of Purgatory.

The most part of the Letters of St. Fulgentius were written in the time of his Exile. The first is address'd to Proba, who was descended of the illustrious Family of the Anicians. There he ex∣tols Virginity, and shows how necessary it is that it should be joyn'd with Humility; and he gives also many useful Instructions to a Christian Virgin.

He address'd also another Letter to her concerning Prayer and Compunction of heart; wherein he recommends particularly this last Vertue. He compo'd also at the desire of this Virgin two Treatises concerning Prayer and Fasting, which are now lost.

In another Letter he comforts a Roman Lady call'd Galla, who was thought to be the Daughter of Symmachus; and understanding that she was resolv'd to live a Widow, he entertains her with a de∣scription of the happiness of that state, and the manner in which she should live.

He wrote to Theodorus a Roman Senator, to confirm him in the design he had taken up of quit∣ting his Secular Employments to dedicate himself to God, and informs him that this Conversion was owing to the Grace of Jesus Christ.

The Letter concerning the Conjugal Duty and the Vow, is upon a particular case. Some had ask'd Fulgentius, Whether a married Person was oblig'd to keep a Vow of Continence. For resolving this Question. St. Fulgentius makes many Observations concerning the use of Marriage, and the Obliga∣tion of Vows. He remarks upon the first Head, That the use of Marriage is allow'd, when it is in∣tended for the procreation of Children; but when it has no other end but pleasure, altho it is not a Crime like Adultery, yet it is always a small sin, which is blotted out by Prayer and good Works. As to the

Vow, he says, That there is no doubt but by it an Obligation is contracted to do the thing which was vow'd. But he maintains, That the Vow of Continence made by one of the married Persons, cannot ob∣lige the other, nor dispense with that Person who made the Vow for paying the Conjugal Duty to the other, at least unless both parties had concurred in making the Vow. Having laid down these Principles, he concludes, That if the Persons who wrote to him, had both made a Vow of Continence, then they were oblig'd to keep it; and that if they found themselves tempted by Carnal Desires, they should humbly pray to God to give them Grace to resist them; but if only one of the two had made the Vow of Continence, that party was oblig'd to pay the Conjugal Duty to the other, who had not made it. He concludes with some Reflexions upon the Duties of married Persons, and chiefly upon the Education of their Chil∣dren.

In the Letter to the Abbot Eugippius, he treats very largely of the Advantages of Charity, and the Love of our Neighbour. He thanks him for his Present, and acquaints him that he had sent him his Letters to Monimus.

St. Fulgentius wrote, at the desire of Junilius, who was one of his Friends, a Letter about Pe∣nance to an unknown Woman, call'd Venantia. There he shows, That remission of sins, committed after Baptism, may be obtain'd in this Life, provided one be sincerely penitent. From whence he con∣cludes that these sinners ought not to despair, but neither ought they to hope without striving and doing of Penance.

The Treatile of Faith address'd to Donatus, contains an exact Explication of the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

We have already spoken of the Question started by the Monks of Scythia upon this Proposition, One of the Trinity did suffer, which they would maintain to be Catholick, and oblige others to ac∣knowledge it for such. Their Faction was very powerful in the East, and they had their Compli∣ces in the West. They had sent, as we have already observ'd, Deputies to Rome, to maintain their Opinions there, and Peter the Deacon was at the Head of them. These Deputies not finding that footing in the Church of Rome which they expected, thought fit to consult the Bishops of Africk which were banish'd to the Isle of Sardinia: And therefore in the Year 521 they address'd to them a Writing, wherein they declar'd their Belief concerning the Incarnation and Grace, and founded it upon the Testimonies of the Fathers.

As to the Incarnation, they acknowledg'd two Natures in Jesus Christ, united into one Person only, without confusion and mixture. They reject the Sentiment of those who professing to be∣lieve one Nature Incarnate in Jesus Christ, do not receive the Decision of the Council of Chalce∣don, or who admitting two Natures, would not say that there is but one Nature of the Word In∣carnate. From these Principles they conclude, That the Virgin is truly the Mother of God; That the Union of the two Natures is essential and natural; That the Person of Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures without any change happening to him; That the Trinity continues the Trinity still, tho one of the Persons of this Trinity was Incarnate; That his Flesh is not become a part of the Trinity, but is become the Flesh of one Person of the Trinity. From whence it comes to pass, that one may say, That one of the Trinity suffer'd and was crucified in his Flesh and not in his Divinity; that it was not Man who was made God, but God who was made Man. They profess to receive the four first General Councils, and the Letters of St. Leo, and to condemn the Errors of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, and of all those whom the Apostolick See had regularly condemn'd.

As to Grace they follow the Principles of St. Austin, and declare that they believe that the first Man was created without Concupiscence, and with a perfect liberty to do good and evil, and that by falling into sin he was chang'd both in his Body and his Soul; that he lost his own Liberty, and became a Slave to sin; that since that time all men are born in sin; that nothing but the Grace of Jesus Christ can deliver us from sin; that without this, we can neither think nor desire that which is good; that Grace worketh in us to do, not by any necessitating violence, but by the sweet inspirati∣on of the Holy Spirit; that no Man can say, 'Tis in my power to believe if I will, since Faith is the gift of God, who worketh in us to believe and to will; that the passage of the Apostle, which says, God would have all Mankind to be sav'd, ought not to be objected against this Doctrine, to prove that nothing hinders us to be sav'd if we will: For if this were so, there would be no ne∣cessity to have recourse to the unsearchable Judgments of God for explaining the reason why one is call'd, and another not; that if God would effectually have sav'd the whole World, he should have wrought in Tyre and Sidon those Miracles which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, since he knew, that if they had been wrought in these two former Cities, their Inhabitants would have repented; that the beginning of good Thoughts, the consent of the Will to do good, cometh to us from God, who produces them in us by his Holy Spirit. They cite for proof of these Principles, some passages of St. Basil, of the Popes St. Innocent and St. Celestin, and of the Council of Africk. They conclude with Anathematizing Pelagius, Celestius and Julianus, and those who are of their O∣pinion, together with the Books of Faustus about Predestination. This Confession of Faith is sign'd by Peter a Deacon, John and Leontius Monks, and by another John a Reader. They pray the Bishops of Afric to approve their Exposition of Faith, that so being supported by their Authority, they may be able to stop the mouth of those who disgrace them.

The Bishops of Afric employ'd St. Fulgentius to write them an Answer; and their Letter bears the names of fifteen Bishops only, who did not only approve in this Letter all the Points of the Confession of Faith, which we have just now explain'd; but did also enlarge and confirm them, without excepting so much as that Proposition, One Person of the Trinity did suffer. They enlarged very much upon the Proofs of Original Sin, the Necessity of Grace for the beginning of Fa••th, upon its Efficacy, upon the Insufficiency of Free-will to do good. They confess that Grace does not de∣stroy our Free-will, but they maintain that our Free-will, which without Grace is not sufficient to do any thing but sin, is deliver'd from this Bondage by Grace, which sets us truly at liberty. They confess also that in some sense it may be said, that Nature has power to believe and to do good, be∣cause Faith and Charity are proper for Human Nature, and Man was created only to believe and do good; but that since the Fall, he cannot have Faith, nor do good unless God give him the pow∣er, as the Soul gives Life to the Body which is capable of being animated. That when the Apostle says, Ther•• are some People who do by nature what the Law commands, this is to be understood of Faithful People and such as were Converted; That neither the knowledge of God nor Faith will avail us any thing without Charity; that the Law of Nature does not deliver us from sin without Grace; that it must be referr'd to the incomprehensible Judgments of God, that he does not effe∣ctually will all Men to believe; that it is sufficient for us to acknowledge with humility his Mer∣cy wholly gratuitous in those who are sav'd, and not to doubt his Justice as to those who are dam∣ned; that those who understand this passage of St. Paul, That God would have all Men to be sav'd, so as to make a Man's Salvation depend upon his own Will, are grosly mistaken; that the example of Infants dying without Baptism, who are condemn'd to Eternal Punishment (for this is the term which Fulgentius uses) without committing any voluntary sin, does confound them: That therefore the words of the Apostle are to be understood in this sense, that no man is sav'd but by the Will of God, because he cannot prevent the fulfilling of God's Will, neither can the effect of it be hin∣dred by the malice of Men; and that 'tis certain, that all those whom God would have sav'd are infallibly sav'd; that it may also be said, that by all men are to be understood, all men who are to be sav'd; that often-times in Scripture all the World is taken for a part of Mankind. Lastly, That God who created Man, hath provided for him by the Decree, by which he predestin'd him, Faith, Justification, Perseverance and Glory, and whosoever does not acknowledge the Truth of this Pre∣destination shall not be of the number of the Elect, nor have any share in that Salvation; That not∣withstanding the Faithful ought constantly to pray, and to have Charity for these Persons, that God would give them his Grace to enlighten them, and to make the Word fruitful in them; for in vain does the Word of God strike our Ears, if God does not open our Understanding by his Grace. Thus ends this Answer of the Bishops of Afric, which is worthy of the Faithful Disciples of St. Au∣stin.

The Books of Faustus against these Principles were publish'd at Constantinople, and because they made a great noise these Monks sent them to St. Fulgentius, who wrote seven Books to refute them. This Work is not printed: Father Vignerus of the Oratory had a Manuscript of it, but since his Death it is not known what is become of it. St. Fulgentius had finish'd it before he was call'd back into Afric.

When he was upon his return thither, he wrote upon the same subject, and according to the same Principles, three Books of Predestination and Grace, address'd to John the Priest, and Venerius a Deacon. He shows in the first Book, That Predestination is purely gratuitous, and that it does not depend upon the prospect of Men's Merits. The example of Infants is one of his strongest Proofs. But whereas some save themselves by saying, That God permits them to receive, or not to receive Bap∣tism, according to the knowledge of the good or evil which he foresaw they should have done if they had liv'd, he rejects this Solution, and this middle Science.

In the second Book he confesses, that the Good and Evil have a Free-will; but he maintains that it is aided and improv'd in good Men by Grace, and that it is weakned and punish'd in the bad; that it is God who converts us, and worketh in us to will that which is good; that 'tis he who gives us the design and will to pray; that the Will of Man always follows the grace of God which precedes it. Towards the end he confutes the Opinion of his Adversaries, who affirm'd, That the Vessels of ho∣nour and dishonour mention'd by the Apostle, are not the Predestinate and the Reprobate; but the Vessels of dishonour are the Poor, the Monks and Ecclesiasticks; and the Vessels of honour are the No∣ble, the Rich and the Potentates of this World. He proves that this Exposition is false; and here∣upon he says, That in this World there is no Dignity in the Church above that of a Bishop, nor in Secular Affairs above that of a Christian Emperor; but all the Bishops and Emperors are not Ves∣sels of Mercy, but only those who acquit themselves well in their Offices. A Bishop, says he, shall not be sav'd, because he is a Bishop, but he shall be sav'd, if he watch over his Flock, if he preach the Word in season and out of season, if he reproves sinners, if he uses to them Entreaties and Rebukes with all kind of patience and meekness; if he has not the spirit of domineering and pride; if, according to the Command of the Apostle, he serves for an Example to all his Flock: So likewise an Emperor is not a Vessel of Mercy destin'd to Glory, because he has the Soveraign Power, but he shall be, if he live in the Orthodox Faith; if being possessed of true Humility, he makes his Royal Dignity subservient to Religi∣on; if he loves rather to serve God with fear, then to command his People with pride; if he moderates his severity by a spirit of meekness, if his power is accompanied with goodness, if he would rather be lov'd

then fear'd, if he minds nothing but the good of his Subjects, if h•• loves Justice without forgetting Mercy, if he remembers, in all his Actions, that he is a Son of the Church, and that he ought to employ his power for its quiet and peace: For this Honour for the Church makes the Emperors greater and more glorious, then all their Battels and Victories.

In the third Book he returns to Predestination, and having affirm'd that it is gratuitous, that Vo∣cation, Justification and Glory are its effects; that it is infallible and certain, that the number of the Predestin'd is determin'd, and that it is impossible to add too, or take away any from them; he an∣swers this great Objection, That if this were so, we ought then neither to pray nor watch, but follow our own Wills, since if we are of the number of the predestin'd, we shall infallibly be sav'd; and if we are not, we cannot be sav'd. He says, That this Objection is like that of those to whom God should promise a long Life, when they infer from this promise, that they will no more take those things that are necessary to maintain this Life. He adds, That as the love of Life makes him to whom this promise is made, seek for those things which are necessary to maintain it; so the Grace which God has prepared for us by his Predestination, does infallibly make us watch, pray and labour. Afterwards he enlarges upon this Passage, God would have all men to be sav'd, and is of Opinion that the true sense of it is, That God would have some Men of all Nations, Ages and Conditions sav'd, and not that he wills the Salva∣tion of every Man in particular, since he would not make himself known to such Men as would have believed in him, if he had made himself known unto them. From hence he passes to con∣sider the difference between the state of the first Man and ours. The first Man was perfectly and fully free, he had no inclination to evil, and he had the power to do good by the assistance of that Grace, which he could use or not use. But since sin entred, the liberty of Man's Will is deprav'd, and his Free-will is become a Slave to sin, and he has need of a powerful preventing Grace to deliver him from the unhappy necessity of sinning, and to render him victorious over Temptations.

Lastly, He treats of the Origine of Souls, whether they be created and put into the Body, or produc'd by other Souls. He follows and approves the Modesty of St. Austin, who treating of this Question, left it undecided. He shews what Difficulties there are to reconcile the first Opinion with the belief of Original Sin; and the second with the manner of propagating Mankind. And so without determining any thing upon the Question, he says only, That we must believe that the Soul is not a Body but a Spirit, that it is not a part of the very Substance of God, but a Creature; that it is not put into the Body as a Prison for sins that are past, but that it is put into the Body by the appointment of God to animate it, and that being united to the Flesh, it contracts Original Sin, from which it is purified by Baptism. He refutes in a few words these Errors, and those who asserted them.

St. Fulgentius wrote also a Letter in the Name of the Bishops of Afric to John and Venerius, to whom he address'd these two Books. This Letter contains the same Principles and the same Do∣ctrine about Grace and Predestination. There they observe, that God permits some Persons to ex∣alt Free-will above Grace, the better to discover the power of this Grace, which is not known when it is not received, and the great struggle that arises then, because without it no Truth can be known, neither is there any Light to discover it. After this Preface he proposes and maintains the following Propositions; 1. That Predestination is purely gratuitous, and that this Decree is not made upon foresight of Men's Merits. 2. That Infants, who die af∣ter they are baptiz'd, are sav'd by the mere Mercy of Jesus Christ, and that those who die without Baptism are condemn'd upon the account of Original Sin. 3. That those who believe this Grace is given to all, are not Catholicks in their Sentiments, since not only all men have not Faith, but there are even whole Nations who never heard of the Gospel. 4. That it may be said, that Man is sav'd by Grace, and by his Good Works, provided it be confess'd that the Grace and Mercy of God prevents the Will of Man, and works in him to will. 5. That all those whom God would have sav'd are predestin'd, be∣cause the Almighty Will of God does always take effect, his Power can never be defeated. 6. That the Free-will which was sound and entire in the first Man, is become weak by sin, but is improv'd and strengthned by Grace. 7. That the Question concerning the Origine of Souls must not be ventilated, or it must be treated of without bitterness; but that there is no doubt that Souls do contract Original Sin. They cite at the end of this Letter a passage of Pope Hormisdas in favour of St. Austin, and praise the Books of Fulgentius about Predestination and Grace, and those which he wrote against Faustus.

We have nothing now remaining, but some Fragments of the Ten Books of St. Fulgentius against a famous Arian, call'd Fabianus.

The first Book was entitled, Of the most High, the Comforter, of the Titles of Ambassador, Doctor and Judge. There he prov'd that these Titles agreed to the Father and the Son.

In the second Book he shew'd that the Functions of Sighing, Desiring and Praying, which are attributed to the Holy Spirit, are not contrary to his Divinity.

In the third he prov'd that Immensity agreed to the three Divine Persons.

In the fourth, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally adorable. He distinguish∣es the Worship of Latria from that of Dulia; the first agrees to God only, and the second may be given to Creatures. He speaks also of the Properties which belong to each Divine Person.

The fifth Book was about the Title of Image which is given to the Son of God, where he proves that he is so the Image of God as to be also of the same Nature.

In the sixth he proves that the Son is eternal as well as the Father.

The seventh establishes the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The eighth was about the Mission of the Holy Spirit.

The ninth is concerning the Invocation of the three Divine Persons; where he demonstrates that the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be Invocated as well as the Father; That Sacrifices are to be offer'd to the Son and Holy Spirit as to the Father, and that the like Thanksgiving is paid unto ••••m.

The tenth was about a Writing upon the Apostle's Creed; where he observes that it was so call'd, either because it is a Compact, or because it is an Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine. After this he proves that what in the Creed is attributed to the Father, agrees to the whole Trinity.

The Treatise address'd to Victor is upon the same Subject, and written at the same time. There he refutes the Discourse of a Priest nam'd Fastidiosus, who having quitted a Religious Profession and the Priestly Office to lead a licentious Life, had also abandon'd the Faith by turning Arian. St. Ful∣gentius proves in this Treatise the Divinity of the Son, and explains how it may be said, That the Word only is Incarnate.

The time is not certainly known when the Treatise of the Faith was written, which is address'd to a Lay-man call'd Peter, who having a design to make a Journey to Jerusalem, desir'd before his departure, to have an Instruction containing the Articles of Faith, that he might know what he ought to believe. St. Fulgentius explain'd to him, first, what he ought to believe concerning the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation: And then he told him that all Beings, both Spiritual and Corporeal, are the Work of God who created them; that Spiritual and Intelligent Beings were to subsist eternally by the Will of God; that the Angels being created free, and having power by the Grace of God to merit their Happiness, or else to fall from it by their sin, one part of them had perish'd, and the other part was confirm'd in the Love of God, which they could never lose any more: That the first Man, who had been created perfectly free, had fall'n into sin, and so sub∣jected all Mankind to death and sin; That God had deliver'd many of them by his Grace, by the help of which they were enabled to live well, and to obtain eternal Life; That there is no state wherein a Man can deserve well, but only during the time of this Life, but as long as a Man lives upon this Earth, there is always space for Repentance; That this Repentance is unprofitable to those that are out of the Church; That all Men shall rise one day, and those who shall die in a good state shall be happy for ever, and others shall be condemned to eternal punishment; That a Man comes to the Kingdom of Heaven by means of the Sacraments which Jesus Christ has insti∣tuted; That none can obtain Salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, except those who shed their Blood in the Church for Jesus Christ; That he who has receiv'd Baptism out of the Church has receiv'd this Sacrament, and if he returns into the Church he ought not to be re-baptiz'd, but his Baptism will profit him nothing if he continues out of the Church, or if he lives ill after he has been receiv'd into the Church; That those who live well ought continually to do Works of Mer∣cy, to expiate those sins which even the Just commit every day; That to avoid them, the humble Servants of Jesus Christ, shun Marriage, and abstain from eating Meat and drinking Wine; Not that they think that 'tis forbidden to use Marriage, to eat Meat and drink Wine; but because they are perswaded that Virginity is to be preferr'd before Marriage, and that Abstinence restrains a Man from sin; That neither second nor third Marriages are forbidden, and that excess in the use of Marriage is a Venial sin, but to those who have made a Vow of Continence, Marriage is a great Crime. Afterwards he reduces this Doctrine to forty Heads, which he thinks are to be believ'd. There was a long Article added at the end of this Treatise, which is cut off, by the Authority of some ancient Manuscript, wherein it is not to be found; and there is so much the more reason for it, because it is plain that this Treatise was concluded before the fortieth Article; and this Chapter has no relation to the preceding.

St. Fulgentius explains also the principal Points of our Faith in the Treatise of the Trinity ad∣dress'd to Felix, who had also desir'd to be instructed, that he might be able to answer the Here∣ticks with whom he convers'd. And in the Treatise of the Incarnation to Scarilus; who had pray'd him to clear up a Question which had been propos'd at Table, Whether or no it might be said that the Father, or the Divine Nature was Incarnate. After he has gone over other Mysteries upon occasion of this Question, he handles another which was also propos'd at the same time, viz. Whether God crea∣ted all Animals: He says, 'Tis certain that God created all things; that at the time of the Creation he formed all the living Creatures which the Earth and the Water produce; and as to those which are engendred out of the Corruption of Flesh and Fruit, he made them not in the first six days Creation, but he created those things out of which they were one day to be form'd.

The Questions which were propos'd to him by Ferrandus a Deacon, are more useful and more rational. A godly Man having an Ethiopian Servant, caus'd him to be well instructed in our Re∣ligion, and put him among the number of the Catechumens; after he had continued there his time, and learn'd the Creed, he was plac'd among those who were to be baptiz'd at Easter: The ordina∣ry Exorcisms were us'd to him, he renounc'd solemnly the Devil, pronounc'd the Creed, and receiv'd the Exposition of the Lord's Prayer: When he was ready to be baptiz'd, he was seiz'd with a vio∣lent Fever, which brought his Life into danger; but Easter-day being near, his Baptism was put off to that day; and then he was carried to the Church in such a Condition, that he had no knowledge,

nor speech, nor motion, nor sense. Yet he was baptiz'd, tho he could not answer himself. A lit∣tle time after this he died, without knowing that he had receiv'd Baptism. This History gives oc∣casion to three Questions: The first is, Whether Baptism administred to an Adult Person, who neither knows any thing, nor can speak and answer himself, does put him in a state of Salvation. The second is, Whether he had been sav'd, tho he had not receiv'd Baptism. The third is, Why we do not baptize the Dead, whose Faith and Piety were well known while they liv'd.

St. Fulgentius, in answer to these Questions, proves first, That Baptism without Faith availeth no∣thing to the Adult. 2. That Children receiving the Sacrament receive the Grace of Faith. This being premis'd, he determines, That the Faith of this Slave having preceded his Baptism, there is no doubt but he received the effect of Baptism, because he had both Faith and the Sacrament, but that it would have been in vain to have had Faith without receiving the Sacrament, for then he could not be sav'd; and that it is unprofitable to baptize the dead, because the Soul cannot obtain remission of its sin after it is gone out of the Body, and the Flesh alone is not capable of sin. After these Answers, he says in general, That the Canons have justly ordain'd to baptize the sick, altho they cannot themselves give an account of their Faith, provided there be Witnesses who answer for their willingness. Lastly, He en∣quires whether a person that has been baptiz'd, and dies without receiving the Eucharist, can be sav'd; Jesus Christ having said, That he who eateth not my Flesh, and drinketh not my Blood, hath no life in him. To which he answers affirmatively, That by Baptism we become the Members of Jesus Christ, and so by this means we are partakers of his Flesh. He cites a passage out of a Sermon of St. Austin, who explains thus the words of Jesus Christ in John chap. 6. of the necessity of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood.

There is another Writing of St. Fulgentius in Answer to five Questions from the same Deacon Ferrandus: The first, to know whether the Three Persons of the Trinity can be separated. St. Fulgen∣tius answers, That they cannot; and proves that all the Attributes which agree to One, agree to the O∣thers, except the relative Properties of the Persons, which necessarily denote the Union of one with the o∣ther.

The second is to know whether it may be said, that the Divinity of Jesus Christ suffer'd or died, as it is said, That a God suffer'd, a Man died, &c. St. Fulgentius maintains that this Expression cannot be condemned; and endeavours to justifie it, by the Testimonies of St. Leo, Galasius, and St. Am∣brose.

The third Question is, Whether the Soul of Jesus Christ did perfectly know the Divinity. St. Ful∣gentius is very confus'd upon this Question, which he decides by saying, That it knew the Divinity perfectly, but not so as the Divinity knows it self; that it knows as much, but not after the same man∣ner as the Divinity it self; that the Soul of Jesus Christ knows fully the Divinity, but it is not the Di∣vinity.

The fourth Question is, Why it is said in the Prayers of the Church, That the Son reigneth with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost; which expression may make a Man think, that the Holy Spirit does not reign as the Father and the Son, but only unites them in their Reign. St. Fulgentius answers, That we pray to the Father through the Son, because the Son is the Priest and the Sacrifice, and that the Uni∣ty of the Holy Spirit denotes the Unity of Nature with the Father and the Son.

The fifth Question is, How St. Luke is to be understood when he speaks of the last Supper of Jesus Christ, that he took the Cup and gave it to his Disciples; that he took the Bread and said, This is my Body; and that afterwards taking the Cup, he said, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood: Was it the same Chalice which was given both times, or two different Chalices. St. Fulgentius answers, That according to some it was only one Chalice given but once, and that St. Luke in the first place says, by way of anticipation, that he distributed it to his Disciples. That according to others, it was one and the same Chalice given two several times. He confesses that both these senses are Catholick, but he approves the last, and finds a great many Mysteries in this double distribution of the Cup. Nevertheless the first sense is more natural, and the only true sense according to the Letter.

The last Work of St. Fulgentius is his Treatise to Reginus, who had propos'd two Questions to him. He answers the first, viz. Whether the Flesh of Jesus Christ was corruptible, or incorruptible, as some affirm'd. He answers, I say, that the Flesh of Jesus Christ was not corruptible, if by Corrupti∣on be understood Sin; but it was corruptible, if this be understood of alteration and sensible Corruption,

Death hindred St. Fulgentius from answering the second Question of Reginius. Ferrandus the Deacon took upon him to write this Answer.

The knowledge, zeal, and easie way of speaking which St. Fulgentius was Master of, will not suffer us to doubt but he wrote many Sermons; but there are but very few of those that go under his Name that are worthy of him. In the last Edition of his Works there are but ten which can be his; and also in the Preface the Sermon of St. Vincent is rejected, as being full of Allusions unwor∣thy of St. Fulgentius. Here follow the Titles of the Sermons; 1. Of the Stewards. 2. Of the two Births. 3. Of St. Stephen the first Martyr. 4. Of the Epiphany, or of the Murder of the In∣nocents, and Adoration of the Wise-men. 5. Of Charity towards God and our Neighbour. 6. Of St. Cyprian the Martyr. 7. Of the good Thief. I doubt very much whether this be St. Fulgentius's as well as the eighth upon Whitsunday. The ninth is that of St. Vincent rejected in the Preface. The tenth is upon the words of the Prophet Micah, I will teach thee, O Man, what is good. This has much of the Air of St. Fulgentius. The second upon the Purification is certainly

not his; for this Festival is later than the Age of St. Fulgentius. The other Sermons are not St. Ful∣gentius's, and therefore are justly thrown back to the end of the Book. * 1.11

These are all which we have at present of the Works of St. Fulgentius. We have lost his true Treatise against Pinta, his Conference with King Thrasimond, his Book of the Holy Spirit to Abra∣gilas, his Letter to the Catholicks of Carthage, two Treatises of Fasting and Prayer, two Letters written to Stephanias in the Name of the Bishops of Sardinia, a Letter to a Bishop, wherein he as∣serts, That Christian Meekness obliges us not to deliver up a guilty Person to a Secular Judge, the whole ten Books to Fabianus, and the seven against Faustus. The ancient Author of his Life makes mention of these Works.

The Treatise of Predestination and Grace, whatever Theophilus Raynaudus says of it, is none of St. Fulgentius's, for it has neither his Style, nor manner of Writing about Grace. The Author of this Book did not fully comprehend the subject matter of it, and had no certain Principles; some times he asserts such Doctrines as are agreeable to those of Cassianus; and some times he adheres to the Doctrine of St. Austin. In fine, he is very far from that Clearness and Copiousness which is found in the Writings of St. Fulgentius: yet this is the Work of an ancient Author.

St. Fulgentius did not only follow the Doctrine of St. Austin, but he also imitated his Style. His Words indeed are not so pure, but then he is not so much given to play with Words. He had a quick and subtil Spirit which easily comprehended things, set them in a good Light, and explain'd them copiously, which may appear unpleasant to those who read his Works. He repeats often the same things in different words, and turn the Questions a thousand different ways. He lov'd Thor∣ny and Scholastical Questions, and us'd them sometimes in Mysteries. He knew well the Holy Scriptures, and had read much the Works of the Fathers, and particularly those of St. Au∣stin.

One part of the Works of St. Fulgentius was printed at Basil in 1556, 1566, and 1587; at An∣twerp in 1574, at Collen in 1618.

F. Theophilus Raynaudus has publish'd them since enlarg'd with some Treatises. They have also been printed at Lyons with the Works of the other Fathers in 1633, and 1652, and in 1671. F. Sir∣mondus publish'd some of them in 1622, and in 1643. Camerarius in 1634, and F. Chiffletius in 1656, and in 1649. But lately all his Works were gather'd together in one Volume in quarto, printed at Paris by Desprez in 1684. They were reviewed by many Manuscripts, the differences whereof are noted in the Margin, or at the end of the Book. He that publish'd them cannot be accus'd of the common Fault which those that make Editions are guilty of, viz. that they make too long Notes, for he has made none at all throughout the whole Book. It appears also by the Preface, which is done by another Author, that he did not place the Works in that Order, which should have been observ'd in making this Edition. Nevertheless, it is exact and correct enough, and it will be easie, if the Book be printed a second time, to enrich it with some Notes, and to put the Works in a bet∣ter Order.

EUGIPPIUS.

EUgippius or Egippius, Abbot of Villa Lucullana in the Country of Naples, wrote to Paschasius the Deacon, a Book concerning the Life of St. Severinus. He compos'd also a Rule for the Mona∣stery of this Saint, which he left him at his death. This is what Isidore of Sevil says of him. Pro∣bably this is the same Eugippius of whom Cassiodorus gives the following Testimony in his Book of Divine Learning, ch. 23. You must read the Works of the blessed Priest Eugippius which we have seen. This man was not very learned, but he was fill'd with the knowledge of the Holy Scripture. He dedicated to his Mother Proba, a Collection taken out of the Works of St. Austin, wherein he made Extracts of this Fa∣ther's Sentiments and Thoughts, whereof he compos'd one Book only, divided into 338 Chapters. 'Tis cer∣tain that this Book is very useful, since he has collected with great exactness into one Book, what can hard∣ly be found in a whole Library. Sigebert of Gemblours does also mention this Work; but he says that this Eugippius, who is the Author of it, liv'd it the time of Pelagius the Second, and of the Empe∣ror Tiberius Constantine, i. e. about the end of the fifth Age. This made some Authors think, that he is different from the Author of the Life of St. Severinus, whom Isidore of Sevil places under the Empire of Anastasius, and under the Consulship of Importunus in 511. But it is easie to perceive that it is an Error of Sigebertus, since the Author of the Collection of the Thoughts of St. Austin was more ancient then Cassiodorus, and his Book was compos'd when Cassiodorus wrote his Book of Divine Learning. 'Tis very probable therefore that it is the same, and that there is no difference between him to whom St. Fulgentius, and him to whom Ferrandus wrote, as Trithemius has observ'd.

The Life of St. Severinus was publish'd in part by Bollandus, and is publish'd entire among the Works of Velserus. The Collection of Passages out of St. Austin was printed at Basil in 1542, and at Venice in 1543.

FERRANDUS a Deacon. * 1.12

FErrandus Deacon of the Church of Carthage, surnam'd Fulgentius, the Friend and Contempo∣rary of St. Fulgentius, composed some Books.

The most considerable is a Collection of the Canons of Councils, for restoring Discipline in the Church of Afric. 'Tis something probable that he compos'd it, when the Catholick Bishops were call'd back by King Hildericus. However this be, it is one of the first and most ancient Collecti∣ons of Canons among the Latins. It is made up of 232 Canons, which are not related at their full length, but only by way of Extract and Compend. They are taken from the Councils of Afric, or from those of Ancyra, of Laodicea, of Nice, of Antioch, of Gangra, and Sardica.

We have already spoken of two Letters of this Deacon written to St. Fulgentius, wherein he proposes to him the Questions which this St. resolves. We have also observ'd, that St. Fulgentius dying before he answer'd the second of the two Questions which Count Reginus propos'd to him, Ferrandus was charg'd with writing an Answer to him. Reginus ask'd in the second Question, After what manner a Captain should behave himself to live Christianly. Ferrandus gave him seven Rules about it, which he thought sufficient to make a Souldier a Spiritual Man and a good Christian. The first is to acknowledge the Grace of Jesus Christ as necessary to every action. The second is to make his Life serve for an Example to his Soldiers. The third is, not to wish for Command, but that he may do good. The fourth, to love the Commonwealth as himself. The fifth, to prefer things Spiritual and Divine to things Earthly. The sixth, not to exercise Justice with too great ri∣gor and severity. The seventh, to remember that he is a Christian. These seven Rules he ex∣plains at great length. This Treatise may be very useful and instructive to Men of Arms. It was written a little while after the death of St. Fulgentius.

The Letters of Ferrandus to Scholasticus Severus, and Anatolius Deacon of the Roman Church, are both written upon the same Subject. There he defends that Proposition which made so great a noise in the East, A, or One Person of the Trinity did suffer. The principal Reason on which he grounds it, is, That it is undeniable that Jesus Christ was A, or One Person of the Trinity, and that he suffer'd; and therefore it may be said, that One of the Persons of the Trinity suffer'd; that 'tis good nevertheless to add, that he suffer'd in the Flesh which he took. He thinks also that it may be said, using this Precaution, that the Divinity suffer'd.

He wrote a great Letter to Eugippius about the Trinity, but there is nothing remaining of it ex∣cept the beginning.

Ferrandus was one of the first who declar'd in Writing against the Condemnation of the three Chapters, and particularly against the Condemnation of the Letter of Ibas. Being consulted upon this Subject by Pelagius, and Anatolius a Deacon of Rome, he answer'd them that he did not agree to the Condemnation of the Letter of Ibas, which was approv'd in the Council of Chalcedon; that this was to impeach the Authority of this Council; that if what had been there done was thus re∣peal'd, it was to be fear'd, the like might be done to the Decisions of the Council of Nice: That General Councils, and chiefly those which the Roman Church approv'd, had an Authority next to that of the Canonical Books; Secundae autoritatis locum post Canonicos libros tenent; and that we are no less oblig'd to obey them then to believe the Holy Scripture. In short, that we ought not to con∣demn those Persons who died in the Communion of the Church; and that as we cannot absolve those who died under Excommunication, so neither can we Excommunicate those who are dead: That it may be lawful for particular Persons to say and write their Judgment, but they ought not to oblige others to subscribe to it, not to embrace it with a blind submission, since this is a Priviledge peculiar to the Canonical Books and the Decisions of General Councils.

The Life of St. Fulgentius is also attributed to Ferrandus, which was certainly written by an Au∣thor cotemporary, and a Disciple of this Saint. It is like enough to his Style, and is found in the Manuscript joyn'd with the Works of Ferrandus: Yet it seems to be written by one who had been a longer time, and liv'd more constantly with Fulgentius then the Deacon Ferrandus. There has been printed under the Name of Ferrandus a Letter address'd to St. Anselm; but the distance of time be∣tween the one and the other, sufficiently discovers the falshood of it. The three first Books of Vigi∣lius of Tapsa have been also attributed to him, but against all reason.

The Style of this Author is simple enough and clear; his Phrases are not long but they are full of Quibbles and continued Allusion. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Achilles Tutius was the first who publish'd a part of Ferrandus's Works in 1518. Mr. Pitheus has since publish'd the Collection of Canons, and F. Sirmondus the two Letters to Fulgentius. The Life of this Saint is in Bollandus. In fine, F. Chiffletius has collected, review'd and publish'd all the Tracts of Ferrandus the Deacon which were printed at Dijon in quarto, in 1649. His Edition was follow'd in the last Bibliotheque of the Fathers.

JOHN MAXENTIUS. * 1.13

THE Monks of Scythia, who maintain'd that it was necessary to say, That One of the Persons of the Trinity was crucified, had for their Champion an Abbot call'd John Maxentius, who defend∣ed their Party very vigorously. 'Tis not well known from whence he was, whether he was from Scythia, or from some other Province of the East * 1.14, or whether he was from the West. The Party whom he defends, would make us believe that he was one of the Monks of Scythia; but his Style discovers that he was born, or at least that he had his Education in the West. I can easily believe that it was so indeed, but then he travelled into the East, where he settled among the Monks of Scythia.

He hath written many Discourses in defence of the Party, and the Opinions of these Monks. He drew up a Petition, which they presented to the Legats of Pope Hormisdas, wherein they com∣plain'd, that they were accused of adding something to the Faith, because they maintain'd the De∣cision of the Council of Chalcedon by the Judgment of the Fathers. They confess that nothing can be added to the Catholick Faith, because nothing but what is imperfect is liable to addition; But they maintain'd that it's not forbidden to explain and clear it up by such terms as the Fathers used. They bring for an instance of this St. Cyril and St. Leo, who added to the Creed the Explications of the Fathers, to discover the true sence of it. They say that they have done the same for maintain∣ing the Council of Chalcedon against those who accused it of condemning the Faith of the Fathers. They joyn'd with this Remonstrance a Confession of Faith, wherein they explain their Sentiments about the Mystery of the Incarnation, and reject the Errors of Nestorius, Eutyches and their Fol∣lowers, and endeavour to shew that we ought to say, That One Person of the Trinity was crucified, and to confirm this Expression by the Testimonies of the Fathers: But there is scarce any except Proclus who used it. They add afterwards a Confession of their Doctrine concerning Grace, the Substance whereof is this; That Adam was created a perfect Man; that he was neither mortal or im∣mortal, but capable of becoming either the one or the other; That he had a perfect liberty of Power and Will to do good or evil, but falling into sin, he had lost the Life of the Soul, as well as that of the Body, and that his sin descended upon all his Posterity: That upon this account Children are baptiz'd, not only to make them the Children of God by Adoption, or to render them worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven (as the Disciples of Pelagius, Celestius and Theodorus of Mopsuestia taught) but also that they may obtain remission of Original Sin which deserves eternal Death; That none can recover himself from this Fall, nor be saved, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ: That Free-will, since the entrance of sin, has, of it self, no other power but that of choosing some carnal good and pleasure, and that it can neither desire, nor will, nor do any thing for eternal Life, but by the Operation of the Holy Spirit: That they condemn on the one side those who say that sin is Natural, or that it's a Substance; and on the other side, they detest those who affirm, against the Doctrine of St. Paul, That it is in us to Will, but it is God that finishe•• the Work.

The Monks of Scythia receiving no satisfaction, as we have said, from the Legats of the Pope, came to Rome; but they were not much better receiv'd by Pope Hormisdas. They continued there more then a year by the order of this Pope, but finding means to withdraw, they fixed up before their departure, twelve Anathematismes, which contain'd in Substance the Doctrine comprized in their Confession of Faith. And as it is the custom of those who are persecuted and accused of He∣resie, about subtil Questions, to make many Declarations and Confessions of Faith, we have also a Confession of Faith made by John Maxentius, together with an Explication of the manner in which the two Natures are united in the Person of Jesus Christ.

After their Departure Pope Hormisdas being very angry with them, wrote to Possessor a Bishop of Afric, That he had done all that lay in his power to cure these Monks of their Error, but could not com∣pass his design; that he found them turbulent and Enemies to Peace; that they sought only to dispute upon new Questions, and that they were so proud that they would have all the Earth enslaved to their Imagi∣nations; That they were wont to spread unjust Reports, to feign Calumnies, to hate the Church, to stir up Seditions, and to maintain their Opinion with obstinacy; That they had a mind also to stir up the People, and sow their Tares at Rome. He adds to what we have now said, that which we have al∣ready reported concerning the Books of Fausius. John Maxentius having undertaken to answer this Letter which was publish'd to the World, took upon him to say, That it could not be Hormisdas's, and that it was not the Work of a Pastor of the Church, but of its Enemies, being stuff'd with nothing but falshoods, errors, contradictions and reproaches. Nevertheless he objects to Hormisdas, that he has not given a positive answer to the Monks of Scythia, although the Letter which he treats of begins with this Maxim. That it's reasonable that those who are consulted should give an Answer to those who consult them. Afterwards he accuses the Author of this Letter of being an Heretick, and a favourer

of the Nestorians. He accuses of the same Heresie Dioscorus the Pope's Legat, and the Bishop Pos∣sessor, to whom this Letter is written, because they were Enemies to those who affirm that One Person of the Trinity suffered. He defends this Expression stoutly, and proves that this Letter can∣not be Pope Hormisdas's, because the Doctrine of the Monks of Scythia is condemned in it as Hereti∣cal, although the Pope, after he had entertained them many times, and known that it was their Doctrine, had not excluded them from his Communion for the space of fourteen Months that they continued at Rome. From whence he concludes, that this Letter was supposititious, or that the Pope was corrupted by Dioscorus; but whether this Letter was his, or anothers, that the Author of it is a Heretick. Afterwards he justifies the Doctrine and Behaviour of the Monks of Scythia, and refutes the Objections which are made against them in this Letter. He maintains that the Monks did not retire from Rome of their own accord, and that they were not driven away by the People, but that the Pope being subject to Human Infirmity, understanding that Dioscorus was returning, had caused them to be forced out of Rome by his Wardens * 1.15, although he had promis'd to hear them in an Ecclesiastical Assembly, when Dioscorus should return. As to what was said in this Letter concerning the Books of Faustus, he observes that the Author should condemn them as Heretical, and not only say that the Church had not received them; but because he approved the Doctrine of St. Austin, he compares it with that of Faustus, endeavouring to prove that it's Heretical contrary to that of St. Austin, and agreeable to that of Pelagius. This he does to confound those who de∣fended the Books of Faustus as Catholick, of which number was Possessor Bishop of Afric.

The same John Maxentius wrote a Discourse against the Acephali, who said that there was but One Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union; and a Dialogue against the Nestorians, divided into two Books. In the last of them he proves stoutly, that it may be said that One Person of the Trini∣ty did suffer. These Works, and others whereof we have now spoken, are to be found in the Bi∣bliothicks of the Fathers. The Style of this Author is pure enough; he wrote with much clearness and strength.

TRIFOLIUS.

ALL that is known of this Author is, that he was a Priest, that he liv'd at the beginning of the sixth Age, for his Country is altogether unknown. There was a Letter of his address'd to * 1.16 Faustus a Roman Senator, against John one of the Monks of Scythia, who was come from Constan∣tinople to Rome. There he refutes their Opinion, and maintains that this Doctrine, One of the Tri∣nity suffer'd, did spring from the Error of Arius, and that it agreed with all Heresies. He advises this Senator to shun all Expressions which are not in the Decisions of the four Councils, nor in the Writings of the Fathers approv'd by these four Councils, such as the Letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus, the Letters of St. Cyril to John of Antioch, and those of St. Leo. He handles the Question with much subtilty; and to prove that this Expression ought not to be us'd, One of the Trinity suffer'd, he grounds his Argument upon this, That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three, but one God only in three Persons: Now when one of the Trinity is nam'd, it seems as if it were said, One of three Gods. Perhaps this Equivocation may be remov'd, by saying, One of the Persons of the Trinity did suffer; but then they fall into another Inconvenience, because this Expression may make a man think that the Divinity did suffer; and if it be added, In the Flesh, the two Natures seem to be confounded. He cites against these Expressions a place out of the Session of the Council of Chalcedon against Carosus and Dorotheus, a Passage out of a Letter of St. Cyril to John, and another out of a Letter of St. Leo to the Emperor Marcianus. He rejects the Testimony of Pro∣clus, and maintains that his Letter is falsified.

This Letter being imperfect at the end, was publish'd by Labbee, from the sheets of Sirmondus, Con∣cil. Tom. 4. p. 1590. as Dr. Cave says, Hist. Lit. p. 396.

ADRIANUS.

THis Author wrote at the beginning of the sixth Age, since he is cited by Cassiodorus, in the Book of Divine Learning. He wrote an Introduction to the Holy Scripture, mention'd * 1.17 by Photius in the second Volume of his Bibliotheque. It was printed in Greek at Ausburg in 1602, and in the eighth Tome of the English Criticks.

LAURENTIUS. * 1.18

LAurentius Bishop of Novaria liv'd at the beginning of the sixth Age: He wrote a Discourse which Trithemius calls A Book of two Times, of that which pass'd from Adam until Jesus Christ, and of that which shall continue from Jesus Christ to the end of the World. This Work indeed begins with the distinction of these two Times, but Penance is the Subject of it: It has been printed under the Name of a Homily upon Penance, yet it is not a Homily.

The same Author wrote some Homilies: There is one in the Bibliotheque of the Fathers concern∣ing Alms, and Father Mabillon has publish'd one about the Cananean Woman in the second Tome of his Analecta. The Style of this Author is very simple.

Some think that this Laurentius is the Archbishop of Milan, whom Ennodius praises, but there is no certain proofs of it, and the Translation from the Bishoprick of Novaria to the Archbishoprick of Milan, which must necessarily be suppos'd, renders the thing very improbable.

MARCELLINUS.

COunt Marcellinus wrote a Continuation of the Chronicon of St. Jerom unto the Year 535 for what follows in the Chronicon under his Name is another Authors, as appears by the Preface. He wrote * 1.19 also four Books of Geography which are mention'd by Cassiodorus. He would not deserve to be rank'd among Ecclesiastical Writers, if he had not in his Chronicon wrote some things which concern the Histo∣ry of the Church. These following Particulars are the principal things in it; The Ordination of St. Gregory Nazianzen; the Councils of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon; The Death and Elogy of St. Jerom, the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople; The Banishment and Deposition of St. John Chrysostom, the Percecution of the Christians in Persia, the Discovery of the Head of St. John Baptist, the Persecution of the Christians in Afric, the Division of the Eastern and Western Churches, the Tumults in the Church of Constantinople for this Form of Faith, One Person of the Trinity suffer'd, and some other particular Remarks.

It was first publish'd by Sconhovius, containing only the Chronicon continued to 535; the follow∣ing part of it was publish'd by Pemvinius, as if it had been Marcellinus's without any Note of distin∣ction. Besides this Edition of Sch••••hovius, this Chronicon was publish'd at Paris 1546, in Octavo, and 1575, at Heidelberg 1588. and at the end of Eusebius's Chronicon at Leyden, 1606. and Amster∣dam 1658. At last Sirmondus publish'd both the Chronicon more correct, and a much larger Appen∣dix of an ancient Writer, from a very old Manuscript at Paris 1619, in Octavo, from whence it was taken, and inserted into the Bibliotheque of the Fathers, Tom. 9. p. 517. Marcellinus wrote al∣so, as Cassiodorus testifies, chap. 17, 25. of Divine Learning, two Books of the Qualities of Times, and Positions of Places, and as many more of the Cities of Constantinople and Jerusalem: But both these Works are lost. Cave Hist. Lit. p. 406.

AEGIDIUS, or GILES the Abbot.

GILES an Abbot of Gallia Narbonensis flourish'd at the beginning of the sixth Age. He is the Author of a Letter, and a Confession of Faith which is in the first Tome of the Gallic Councils * 1.20 publish'd by Father Sirmondus.

ORENTIUS. * 1.21

ORentius or Orientius Bishop of Elvira in the Province of Tarragona, who assisted at the Council held at Tarragona 〈◊〉〈◊〉 516, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Verse ••n Ad•…•…ion address'd to Christians, mention'd by Si•…•… in his Catalogue of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Writers, Chap. 34. It was also publish'd by Delrio, and printed at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Year 16•••• by 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ and with Notes at Salamanca in 1644. It is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Fathers. It is not written in Heroical Verse, as Sigibert observ'd, but in Elegiac Verse. The Style of this P•…•… is close and 〈◊〉〈◊〉: Altho it favours of the Latine of that Age in which it was written, yet it is neither f••ding no•• barbarous.

BOETIUS.

THe illustrious Names of Flavius Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boetius, which this Author bears, are a Testimony of the Nobility of his Extraction: He was chosen Consul in 487, and * 1.22 510, and had the Joy to see his two Children promoted to this Dignity in the Year 522. But a little after he fell from the most happy state that can be imagin'd into the depth of Misery: For be∣ing accus'd of having a Design to restore the Authority of the Senate and Roman Republick, he was depriv'd of all his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sent 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Pavia, and kill'd in his Prison by Order of King 〈◊〉〈◊〉. This deadly Accident happen'd in 524.

Bo••••ius was very 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Ar•••• and Sciences, and particularly in the Philosophy of the An∣cients. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and wrote Commentaries upon them, and composed some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Geometry.

Of all his Books of Philosophy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 has any Relation to Christianity, viz. his Excellent▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Consolation of philosophy which he wrote in Prison. It is a Conference which he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that he had with Philosophy, which comforts him in his Misery. It is written partly in Prose and partly in Verse, and divided into five Books.

The first 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Complaints of 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ and the miserable state to which he was redu∣ced.

In the second Philosophy, for his Consolation, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 such Motives as are less effectual, by show∣ing him that he has 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cause 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of F•…•… which had been so long favourable to him.

In the same Book he proves, That Supreme Napp•…•… does not consist, in those things of which he was depriv'd, and that God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Sovereign Go•…•….

Having prov'd in the fourth Book▪ That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but good men are happy, and that the wicked are always miserable▪ ••he Discourses of Providence and Destiny, and enquires into the Reasons why God per•…•… the Wicked to enjoy a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Happiness, and the good to suffer Pain.

In the fifth ••he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Chance, of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and the manner of reconciling Free-will with the Prescience of God. Boetius makes her say, That Prescience is not at all destroy'd by Free-will, be∣cause altho every thing that God foresees does necessarily come to pass, yet it had not been foreseen, but that it was to come to pass by a Choice perfectly free.

Altho Boetius was not a Clergy-man by Profession, yet he wrote some Theological Books.

He wrote a Treatise of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, upon occasion of a Question that had been started about a place in the Council of Chalcedon, wherein this Proposition of Eutyches is con∣demn'd, That Jesus Christ is of two Natures, but he does not subsist in two Natures. Boetius at first could hardly understand the difference between these two Expressions; but afterwards medita∣ting more upon it, he found that this Proposition was really the Principle of the Errors of Eutyches. This engag'd him to refute the Error of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and to explain after what manner the two Na∣tures are united in one Person only. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 use of A•…•…'s Philosophy to explain the terms of Substance and Person, and handles this matter in a very subtil and sch••l••stical manner.

His Treatise of the Trinity to Symmachus is no less full of Philosophical terms and Metaphisical subtilties, as well as his Letter to John the Deacon of Rome upon this Question, viz. Whether the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be affirm'd substantially of the Divinity; i. e. whether it can be said, The Father is the Divinity, &c. Boetius seems to be the first who explain'd our Mysteries by Aristotle's Philosophy, and made use of that Method which the School-men so greedily have embrac'd.

I say nothing of his other Works, because they are about matters purely profane. They were collected and printed at Bafil by Henry the Son of Peter, in the Year 1546. This Author wrote purely enough, and does not much favour of the Barbarism of his Age: But the Scholastical terms

which he uses, and the subtilty of the Questions which he handles, render him obscure and tedious. His Work of the Consolation of Philsophy is free from this fault; It is a Work worthy of a more re∣fin'd Age, and may pass for a Master-piece in its kind.

EPIPHANIUS SCHOLASTICUS.

CAssiodorus made this Man, whom he thought very Eloquent, translate the Ecclesiastical Histories * 1.23 of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodores, That eloquent Greece, says he, may not insult over us and boast that they have anything which we have not. This Version is faithful enough, but it favours very much of ••he Barbarism of the Age in which this Translator wrote.

[He translated also the Commentaries of Didymus upon Solomon's Proverbs, and the seven Cano∣nical Epistles, and the Commentaries of Epipha••ius the Cyprian upon Canticles, and perhaps many other Books. But all these Versions are lost. Only the Version which he made at the desire of Cas∣siodorus, of the Condex Encyclious, or a Collection of Synodical Epistles to Leo the Emperor in De∣fence of the Council of Chalcedon, is extant, Conc. Tome 4. p. 891. and has been publish'd more cor∣rect by Baluzius, in his new Collection of Councils, Paris 1683. fol. Cave Hist. Lit. 387.]

THEODORUS the Reader.

Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret having all three written the Ecclesiastical History of the same time, from the Empire of Constantine to that of Theodosius the younger, that happen'd to them, which is scarce avoidable by all those who write the same History, that they often report the same things, * 1.24 and one adds some things which the others had pass'd over in silence: So that a man must either re∣solve to read many times the same things by reading all their three Histories, or else he must lose the knowledge of some things and considerable circumstances by reading one only. To shun these Inconveniencies, it was necessary to compose a Body of the History out of these three Works, and to relate but once those things which are found written by several, and to supply from one Historian what is wanting in the others. This Work was undertaken among the Greeks by Theodorus the Reader of the Great Church of Constantinople and finish'd by Cassiodorus in the Version made by Epiphanius: For as to Theodorus he went no further in this Work then to the Death of the Emperor Constantinus. This Collection was divided into two Books, whereof there are yet some Manu∣scripts. [There is one Greek Manuscript of it in the Venetian Library of St. Mark and Leo Allatius had another, from which Valesius took his various Readings of the Histories of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, Cave p. 393.] But he wrote of his own two Books of the Continuation of the History of these three Authors, drawn to the Reign of Justinus the Elder; of which there remains now no more but an Abridgment of the Chapters, which was preserv'd by Nicephorus, and some Fragments taken out of the fifth and seventh Council; and from St. John Damascene. I think we need not very much regret the loss of this Work, since the Abridgment which we now have of it is very exact, and all things are related in it with great care. It is to be found, with the Fragments, at the end of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, publish'd by Valesius, Museulus has also plac'd it at the end of his Version of the Ecclesiastical Historians. [It is printed in Greek, with the other Ecclesiastical Greek Historians, by Robert Stephens at Paris, 1544. Gr. Lat. at Geneva, 1612. and with the Version and Notes of Valesius, Paris 1673. Cave p. 393, 394.

SEVERUS.

SEverus born at Sozopolis, a City of Pisidia, was Head of the Monks of Palestine, and of the Sect of Acephali: he was made Bishop of Antioch in 513, and forc'd away from it in 519. He * 1.25 wrote some Treatises in the form of Letters, whereof we find some Fragments cited in the third Council of Constantinople, taken from a second Letter to Oecumenius, from a Letter to Paul, from a Sy∣nodical Letter to Anthimus, and from a Letter to Theodosius. He maintains that there is but one Na∣ture in Jesus Christ, and condemns the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo.

[He wrote several other Letters mention'd by Evagrius, and some Homilies and Commentaries▪ upon Scripture, frequently mentioned in the Greek Ca••ena's, Cave p. 390.]

JOHN of Scythopolis.

I Have read, says Pl••ti••••, a Treatise of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Scythopolis. Sch•…•…stious, against the Deserters of the Church against Eutyches and Dioscorus, and those of their Sect, who ••ould not confess that Jesus * 1.26 Christ subsisted in two Natures. A Patriarch, call'd Juli••tus, had pray'd him to write this Treatise, which contains twelve Books; the Style of this Author is clear and chast, and he makes use of proper terms for an Historical Style. He opposes stoutly the Error, and does not misapply the Te∣stimonies of Holy Scripture. He makes use of Logical Arguments when they may be useful to his Cause. The Author, whom he refutes in this Work, had industriously conceal'd his Name, and put no other Title to his Work, but A Treatise against Nectorius, to entice the Simple by this Fraud to the reading of his Book. 'Tis probable that Basil of Cilici•• was the Author of this Work, since he wrote afterwards a Book in form of a Dialogue against the Treatise of John of Scythopolis.

BASIL of Cilicia.

HEre follows what we learn from Pho••ius of the Life and Works of this Author. This Basil, says he, was, as he himself assur'd me, a Priest of the Church of Antioch at the time that Flavianus * 1.27 govern'd that See under the Reign of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. I have read his Ecclesiastical History, which begins at the Death of Simplicius Bishop of Rome, who wrote to Acacius of Constantinople, that he should not Communicate with Peter sirnam'd Mongus, who then corrupted the Church of Alexandria, to which See he was promoted, and publickly condemn'd the Council of Chalcedon. Acacius at first was against him, but afterwards he was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Enemies, which made him be look'd upon as a Heretick by many, and depos'd by the Romans. This Affair was newly began under the Reign of Zeno. But to return to our Author; He begins his History with this Disturbance, and concludes it with the Death of Anastasius, and the Coronation of Justinus. He observes that he had also written two other Books of History, whereof the first begins at the Reign of Marcianus, and ends at that of Zeno, with which he begins the second, and there is a third, which begins at the Reign of Justinus. The Style of this Historian is not polite, and very unequal. He relates the Letters which the Bishops wrote one to another, for proof of the Matters which he asserts; and this makes his Volume of a prodigious thickness, because one single History of little consequence fills many pages, and his Na•…•… is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ort, and obscur'd by long Interruptions.

He wrote also a T•…•… against John of Scythopolis, whom he calls a Caviller, and loads with many Reproaches: He accuses him of being a Ma•…•…ean, of reducing Lent to three Weeks, of permitting one to eat Birds in that tune of observing Pagan Ceremonies, of being too much addicted to his Pleasures, of not waiting for the Communion till the Sacrifice was ended, but taking the Holy Mysteries immediately after the Gospel, that he might go the sooner to his Repast. This Treatise was stuff'd with all kind of Invectives, and divided into sixteen Books. The first thirteen are Dialogues against the first Book of John of Scythopolis: The three last are a continued Discourse against the second and third Book of the same Author.

Photius gives a particular Account of the Subject of each of these Books, whose general design was to oppose the Union of the two Natures, and the Expressions made use of in that Age to de∣note them. To this end he employs several passages of Scripture about which he cavils. Altho he was of Nestorius's Opinion, yet he never names him, but he commends Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia. He does not openly condemn St. Cyril, but he says, that he against whom he wrote, grounds his Doctrine chiefly upon the Chapters of this Patriarch of Alexandria, and particularly upon the twelfth. This Work was Dedicated to one nam'd Leontius: It is written in a very mean style, and is full of Faults; but it contains many Sophisms and Arguments which dis∣cover that this Author was well vers'd in this sort of Subtilties.

JOHN the First, Bishop of Rome. * 1.28

JOHN, sirnamed Catelin, a Tuscan by Nation, and the Son of Constantius, was promoted to the See of Rome in the Month of August of the Year 523, which was the 31th of the Reign of Theodoric in Italy, and the sixth of the Empire of Justinus. This Emperor having a desire to extir∣pate Arianism in the East, order'd that the Churches which the Arians possess'd should be taken from them, and given to the Catholick Bishops who consecrated them. The Arians having complain'd to King Theodoric, who was of their Sect, threatned that he would treat the Catholicks of Italy after the same manner, if Justinus did not recal his Order. He thought that the best way to make these Threatnings successful, was to send the Bishop of Rome to desire this Favour of the Emperor, that so the Catholick Churches of Italy might be preserv'd from Ruin. John went thither, tho much against his Will, with some Senators of Rome; and Anastasius the Library-keeper says, That he was receiv'd at Constantinople very honourably, and obtain'd of the Emperor the Revocation of this Or∣der in favour of the Churches of Italy. Nevertheless there is a Letter attributed to this Pope, which supposes that he was so far from making this Request to the Emperor, that he himself contributed to the Execution of the Order, which this Prince had publish'd, and Consecrated some Churches of the Arians for the Catholicks; and Gregory of Tours says, That he was imprison'd for having consecrated some Churches of the Arians. This makes Baronius believe, that John advised the Emperor Justinus not to agree to that which he came to desire of him in the Name of the King of Italy, and that in imitation of the famous Regulus, he sacrific'd himself, and expos'd his Church to the danger of de∣struction, rather then he would desire any thing which was contrary to the Welfare of the Universal Church. I cannot tell whether such a Zeal is not indiscreet; but this I know, that there is no proof that John us'd it after this manner: For the Letter just now mention'd is supposititious, as we shall show; and Gregory of Tours does not say, that John fell into disgrace with Theodoric, for having con∣secrated the Churches of the Arians in the East, but for doing it in the West. However this be, John and his Collegues having return'd, were very ill receiv'd by King Theodoric, who cast them in∣to Prison at Ravenna, where John died the 27th day of May in the Year 526.

The two Letters attributed to this Pope are both supposititious: The first, which is said to be ad∣dress'd to an Archbishop call'd Zacharias, is compos'd of the words of the Letters of Innocent, Zo∣simus, Symmachus and Theodoric. The Date of the Consuls in it is false; It is the Style and the Work of Mercator.

The second, address'd to the Bishops of Italy, exhorting them to Consecrate the Churches of the Arians, as was done in the East, has the same marks of Falshood. The Date of the Consuls is false. It begins with some Scraps of the Letters of St. Leo, and the rest is a hotch-potch of passages out of the second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, according to the Vulgar Version. In fine, this Letter is contrary to History, to Ingenuity and good Sense: To History, because Anastasius as∣sures us, that John perform'd this Embassy; to Ingenuity, because John should not have undertaken this Negotiation, if he had a mind to desire of Justinus that which was contrary to his Trust. In fine, It is contrary to good Sense; for nothing can be more ridiculous then this Inference, I have consecrated the Churches of the Arians in the East under a Christian Emperor who desir'd it; There∣fore you ought to consecrate them in Italy in spite of an Arian Prince, who will be provok'd by so do∣ing utterly to destroy the Catholick Churches. A delicate Consequence!

FELIX the Fourth, Bishop of Rome.

AFter the Death of John, the Holy See was vacant for almost two Months, and at last Theodoric * 1.29 caus'd to be chose in his room Felix, the fourth of that Name, who continued in the Holy See until the twelfth day of October in the Year 529. There are three Letters which go under the Name of this Pope, but the two first are manifestly supposititious, being nothing but a Collection of Passages patch'd together out of the Letters of St. Innocent, St. Leo, St. Gregory, and the forged Let∣ters to St. Clement and Damasus. The third, which is addres'd to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, was some time attributed to Felix the Third, because of the Name of the Consul Boetius which is found in it, altho Caesarius was not yet Bishop under that Consulship. But F. Sirmondus has found in a Manuscript the Name of Mavortius, instead of that of Boetius; which discovers that this Letter is Felix the Fourth's, and of the Year 528. There he approves the Canon made by the Bishops of the Gauls, wherein it was forbidden to promote a Lay-man to the Priesthood, unless he were first tried.

BONIFACE the Second, Bishop of Rome. * 1.30

BOniface the second of that Name, the first Pope of the Nation of the Goths, was promoted to the Holy See under the Reign of King Alaricus on the fourteenth day of October in the Year 529. At the same time one part of the Clergy chose Dioscorus, who was formerly one of the De∣puties sent into the East by Hormisdas. Boniface was Ordain'd in the Church of Julius, and Diosco∣rus in that of Constantine. But this last died the twelfth day of November. Boniface seeing himself left in sole possession, us'd his utmost endeavours to bring over those who had been of the other Par∣ty; he threatned them with an Anathema, and forc'd them to subscribe. He call'd together the Clergy, and condemn'd the Memory of Dioscorus, accusing him of Simony. He proceeded yet fur∣ther, and, as if it were not enough for him to be secur'd of the Holy See for himself, he would al∣so appoint himself a Successor; and having call'd a Synod, he engag'd the Bishops and Clergy by Oath, and under their Hands, that they should choose and ordain in his room the Deacon Vigilius after his Death. This being against the Canons, he himself acknowledg'd publickly his Fault, and burnt the Writing which he extorted from them.

To this Pope there is attributed a Letter to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria, wherein he writes to him, that the Bishop of Carthage was re-united to the Church of Rome, supposing that he had been separated from it ever since the time of Aurelius. But, as little as is known of the History of these times, this Piece appears to be supposititious: For every one knows, that Aurelius and his Collegues were always closely united to the Church of Rome, and that their Successors did never separate from it. Besides that there never was any Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria, and that the Impost or who con∣triv'd this Letter, supposes it written under the Empire of Justin, who was dead before Boniface was promoted to the Holy See. But tho he had not so plainly fail'd in History, it were easie to disco∣ver his Imposture, by observing that this Letter is compos'd of Passages taken out of the Letters of St. Leo, Hormisdas, and even out of the Letter of St. Gregory, who was not promoted to the See of Rome, till many years after Boniface.

This Letter therefore is the Work of an Impostor, as well as that Libel of this Eulalius, wherein he Excommunicates all his Predecessors, and all his Successors, and all those who shall infringe the Priviledges of the Roman Church: For excepting this impertinent passage, the rest of this Writing is taken out of St. Gregory and Hormisdas. The Date of the Consuls agrees to a year wherein Boni∣face was dead.

The only true Letter of Boniface is that which is address'd to Caesarius of Arles, who had written to his Predecessor against the Opinion of some Bishops of the Gauls, who said that the beginning of Faith should be attributed to Nature and not to Grace, and at the same time had pray'd, for the removing of all difficulties, that it might be confirm'd by the Authority of the Holy See, That Faith and the first Motions of the Will to that which is good, were inspir'd by preventing Grace. Boniface an∣swers him, That it is a manifest Truth, that we can neither desire, nor begin any Good, nor have Faith, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ. He commends the Bishops of France who had ap∣proved this Doctrine, and hopes that others would submit to it. This Letter is dated the 25th of January, under the Consulship of Lampadius and Orestes, in the Year 530. The Date of it shews that Boniface was promoted to the Holy See in the Year 529, and that Felix had the Pontificat a year less then is noted in Anastasius. In the Year 531, Boniface held a Council about the Petition of Stephen Bishop of Larissa, concerning the Rights of the Popes of Illyricum. We shall speak of it hereafter in the Acts of this Council. [His Epistles are printed Concil. Tom. 4. p. 1684. Cave p. 402.]

JOHN the Second, Bishop of Rome.

JOHN sirnam'd Mercurius, a Roman by Nation, the Son of Prejectus, was Ordain'd Bishop of Rome on the 22th of January, in the Year 532, and govern'd this Church two Years and some * 1.31 Months. Immediately after his Promotion, the Emperor Justinian wrote him a Letter, which he sent by two Bishops call'd Hypatius and Demetrius, wherein, after he has testified his Respect for the Holy See, he informs him, that some Persons would not believe that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, who was born of Mary, and who was crucified, is one of the Persons of the Trinity, which gave just cause of Suspicion that they were of Nestorius's Judgment. He adds a Confession of Faith wherein he inserts this Expression, That the Son of God, who was born of Mary, and was crucified, is one of the Persons of the Trinity: And lastly, he prays the Pope to write Letters to himself, and

to the Patriarch of Constantinople, declaring that he receiv'd them into his Communion, and all those who profess'd this Faith, and that he condem'd those that did not approve of it.

The Pope answers him, that he commends his Zeal for Religion, and the Respect he testified * 1.32 for the Holy See; that he approv'd his Doctrine and the Confession of Faith which he had sent, and that he look'd upon these as separate from the Church who would not receive it, and chiefly Cyrus who had been sent to Rome on the behalf of the Monks Acaemetae. Some have doubted of the Truth of these two Letters; but there is no reason to reject them, and they are both acknowledg'd by those that wrote them, and by those who spake of them, viz. by John in his Letter to the Senators, and the Emperor in his Constitution to Epiphanius of Constantinople. The Emperor's Letter is dated in the Year 533, and the Pope's in the next year. At the same time the Pope wrote a Letter, or rather a Discourse to the Roman Senators, wherein he declares that he approv'd this Proposition, That Jesus Christ who suffer'd is one of the Persons of the Trinity. He brings some Passages of the Fathers to justifie this Expression, and admonished them, that they ought not to communicate with the Monks Acaemetae, who are of another Opinion.

The same Pope wrote three Letters about the Affair of Contumeliosus Bishop of Regium, who was accus'd and convicted of Uncleanness. The first is to the Bishops of the Gauls, to whom he writes, That they ought not to suffer this Bishop to perform any part of the Sacerdotal Function, and that they ought to shut him up in a Monastery, and name a Deputy to his Church, who shall there barely celebrate the Ho∣ly Mysteries, without Ordaining any Clergy-men, or disposing of the Patrimony of the Church. He al∣lows him to present his Request to the Bishops, that he may be admitted to do Penance by acknow∣ledging his Fault. The second is written to the Clergy of Regium, wherein he acquaints them that he thought it convenient to send them a Deputy, that he left the care and ordering of these things to the Bishop of Arles. The third is to Caesarius of Arles, wherein he testifies his sorrow that a Bi∣shop was found Guilty of such Crimes as Contumeliosus was convicted of; but he thinks it conveni∣ent, that as to him the rigor of the Canons should be observ'd, by Deposing him and sending him to a Monastery. At the same time he recommends to him that he should send a Deputy to his Church, until a Bishop could be Ordain'd for it. He sent with this Letter a Memorial containing the Ca∣nons against the Bishops condemn'd by the Synod of the Province, viz. The 7th Canon of the Epistle of Siricius to Himerius, the 25th and 29th of the Apostolick Canons, and the 4th and 15th of the Council of Antioch, and the 9th of Nice.

I have not said any thing of the first Letter attributed to this Pope, and address'd to Valerius, be∣cause it is the Work of Mercator. There are found in it some Scraps of the Writings of Itachius and St. Leo; the style is different from that of the true Letters of this Pope, and the date of the Consuls is false. [All the six Epistles are printed Conc. Tom. 4. p. 1741. whereof the first to Valerius is re∣jected by Labbee as spurious, Cave p. 404.]

AGAPETUS Bishop of Rome.

AGapetus born at Rome, and the Son of Gordianus, succeeded to John the second about the end of the Year 534, but he was not a whole Year in that See, and stay'd but a little while at Rome. Immediately after his Ordination he abolish'd the Anathema, which Boniface had extorted from the Bishops and Priests against the Memory of Dioscorus, and caus'd it to be burnt. Justinian, who ma∣nag'd extremely the Holy See, wrote to him upon his Promotion, and sent his Letter by the Priest Heraclius. After he had us'd the ordinary Complements in his Letter, he declares to him that he thought it very convenient for bringing back the Arians into the Church, to maintain them in the Dignities they had in the Church, where they were among their own Sect, and not to exclude them from rising to a higher station. He writes to him also about the Cause of Stephen Bishop of Larissa, who had implor'd the Aid of the Holy See under the Pontificat of Boniface, against the Sentence past against him by Epiphanius of Constantinople, and desires him to make the Bishop of Justinianea his Vicar in Illyricum. The Pope answers the Emperor's Complements very civilly, and praises his Zeal for the Re-union of the Arians; but he does not approve, that the New-converts should be con∣tinued in their Dignities, nor that they should be permitted to rise to higher.

As to the Affair of Stephen, he says, That he takes no other part but that which is for the Defence of Innocence and Justice; that what the Holy See did about that Affair, proceeded from a Zeal it has al∣ways had to maintain its Rights, and to reserve to it self the Cognizance of the Affairs that concern the whole Church. That because the Emperor consented that this Cause should be instructed by the Legats of the Holy See, he would send them a Power; That he was willing at his desire to receive Achilles into his Com∣munion, who had been ordain'd in the room of Stephen, but that he could not allow him to exercise the Sacerdotal Function, until he had seen the Informations which the Legats should make: That altho the Em∣peror would excuse Epiphanius for Ordaining him, because he did it by his Order, yet he should acknow∣ledge that he was blame-worthy, since he ought to press him earnestly with the duty which on this occasion

belong'd to the Dignity of the Holy See, and so much the more, because he had to do with a Prince who espoused its Interests. In fine, he tells him, That he would inform him by his Legats of the Resolution he had taken about the City of Justinianea, and the Title of Vicar of the Holy See, which he would bestow upon the Bishop of that City. This Letter is dated Octob. 15. in the Year 534.

At this time Bellisarius, General of the Army to the Emperor Justinian, made great progress a∣gainst Theodatus King of Italy. He was already become Master of Dalmatia and Sicily, and was ready to pass the next Compagne in Italy. Theodatus thought that the most effectual way to put a stop to his violent Motions, was to interest the Pope, the Senate and the People of Rome in his quarrel. He threatned them therefore that they should all be put to the point of the Sword, unless they ob∣tained of Justinian a Cessation of Arms. The Pope Agapetus was intrusted with this Embassy. When he arrived at Constantinople, the Emperor sent some Persons to Complement him in his Name, and to carry him a Letter in which he had inserted the Letter and Confession of Faith which he had sent to John. The Pope's Answer was, That he commended his Piety, that he approved his Doctrine, and condemn'd those that were not of his Judgment, but then withal he signified to him, that it did not belong to Lay-men to make Confessions of Faith. Afterwards he had Audience of the Empe∣ror, and declar'd his Commission; but he could not prevail with him to stop the Course of his Vi∣ctories. But if the Embassy of Agapetus had not the Success which might be expected for the Af∣fairs of Italy, yet it did great Service to the Church. For there was then in the See of Constantino∣ple one named Anthimus, formerly Bishop of Trebizonde, whom the Empress Theodora had promoted to that Dignity: This Man in his Judgment was an Eutychian, and a Disciple of Severus, who was then the Chief of them. Agapetus having discover'd that he was of this Judgment, would not com∣municate with him, although he was press'd to do it by the Emperor and Empress. He declared also, that a Stranger as he was, being Bishop of another Church, could not continue in the See of Constantinople, and that all which he could do out of respect to the Empress, was to suffer him to return to his former Church, if he should give assurance in writing that he was Orthodox in his Judgment. Agapetus held firm to this, and neither the Threatnings nor the Promises of the Empress could move him. Anthimus on his part being unwilling to do what the Pope required, he declared him an Heretick and unworthy of the Priesthood, and Ordained Mennas in his room. This was done with the consent of the Emperor, who acknowledg'd that Anthimus was not Orthodox, and therefore abandon'd him; and he himself chose Mennas, as appears by the Letter, wherein Agapetus gives notice of this Alteration to Peter of Jerusalem, and the other Bishops of the East, related in the Acts of the Council under Mennas.

When this was done, Agapetus prepar'd to depart, resolving to leave the Deacon Pelagius as Sur∣rogate for Constantinople; but God otherwise dispos'd of him by death, for he died before his depar∣ture at the end of the Year 535.

There are also four Letters of Agapetus which have no relation to the Affairs of the East, but to those of the Churches of Afric, and the Gauls.

The first is an Answer to the Synodical Letter, which Reparatus Bishop of Carthage, and the other Bishops of Afric, in number 227, had written to John the Second, the Predecessor of Agapetus. They acquaint him in this Letter (which is found among the Letters of this Pope) that desiring to restore the ancient Custom, which the violence of Persecution had interrupted for almost a hundred years, they had assembled a General Council of Afric in the Church of Faustus at Carthage, from whence Hunnericus had formerly driven them; That in this Council they had first read the Canons of the Nicene Council, and then consider'd of the manner wherein they should receive the Arian Bishops that should be converted, whether they should continue them in their Office, or only receive them to Lay-Communion: That all thought it reasonable in the first place to consult him about this Questi∣on, being fully perswaded, that the Holy See would give them such an Answer about it, as they would approve with an unanimous Consent: That so far as they could judge by what the Bishops had already declar'd, their Opinion was, not to continue them in their Dignities at their Readmissi∣on; but yet they thought not fit to publish their Judgment, till they had known what was the Cu∣stom and Advice of the Holy See in such a Case: That they had sent the Deacon Liberatus to him, to be inform'd of the late Transactions, and at the same time to discharge the Duty they owed un∣to him. They consult him also about this other Question, Whether those should be admitted into Holy Orders, who had receiv'd Baptism when they were Infants from the hands of the Arians: And, lastly, they pray that the Bishops, Priests or Clergy-men of Afric, who should pass beyond Sea without a Letter of Credence, should be treated as Hereticks.

This Letter being deliver'd to Agapetus, the Successor of St. John, he declar'd to them in his Answer, That the Holy See had sympathiz'd with them in their Affliction, and commends them for remembring their Duty to it, and addressing to him for Counsel. After this he answers their En∣quiries, That they ought not to suffer those who return from Heresie, to continue in Ecclesiastical Dignities, or promote them to any; but he thought it convenient, that they should partake of the Revenues of the Church that were settled for the Subsistence of the Clergy. He determines also, that their desire, as to the Clergy who went out of Afric, should be observ'd, as a necessary Precau∣tion to oblige them to stay in their Churches, and to hinder them from being Vagabonds.

Before the Letter of the African Bishops was sent, Reparatus having receiv'd the News of the death of John, and the Ordination of Agapetus, wrote a Letter to him in his own Name, to con∣gratulate

his Promotion to the Pontificate, and to recommend his Concerns to him. Agapetus an∣swer'd this Letter in particular, and acknowledged the Preheminence of the Bishop of Carthage above * 1.33 all the other Bishops of Afric. Both these Letters of Agapetus are dated the ninth of September: In the last the Consulship is mark'd thus, Post Consulatum Paulini viri clarissimi; After the Consulship of Paulinus a most famous Man. This was in the Year 535, but it is more probable that this Letter was written at the beginning of the Pontificate of Agapetus, before his Journey to Constantinople, and so it must be read, Paulino V. C. Cos. which was in the Year 534.

The third of the Letters that we now speak of, is address'd to Caesarius of Arles, who had pray'd him to give some of the Revenues of his Church for Relief of the Poor. Agapetus answers him, that he was very well inclin'd to grant his Petition for the Relief of the Poor; but that the express Con∣stitutions of the Fathers did so strictly forbid Bishops to alienate the Revenues of their Churches, un∣der any pretence whatsoever, that it was impossible for him to transgress them; that he thought, he would not take it ill, that he had not violated the ancient Canons, and that he pray'd him to believe he did not refuse through Covetousness, or for his own Profit, but only because he was oblig'd, out of respect to the Judgment of God, to observe inviolably what was ordain'd by the Authority of a Council, and to convince him, he sent to him the Canon by which this was ordain'd.

The second Letter address'd to the same Caesarius, concerns the Affair of Contumeliosus. This Bi∣shop being condemn'd, had appeal'd to Rome. The Pope had appointed Judges upon the Places, yet the Bishops of the Gauls caus'd their own Judgment to be put in Execution. The Pope wrote to Caesarius, that it would be better to suspend the Execution, till his Cause were decided a-new, or at least to permit him to withdraw, and not to shut him up in a Religious House. He ordains that his Goods should be restor'd to him, but that he should not dispose of the Revenues of the Church, nor be permitted to celebrate Mess; that the Arch-deacon of his Church should be nam'd as Deputy in his room, who should have the Administration of Affairs until he was sentenc'd; on condition that the first Judgment given against him should be no wise prejudicial to him, and that no consideration should be had of it in the second. These Letters are dated the 18th day of August in the Year 535. There may be a fault in the Date of the Consulship.

I say nothing of a Letter of Agapetus to Anthimus, because it is a Piece taken out of the 97th E∣pistle of St. Leo, according to the Custom of Isidore. [All the seven Epistles are publish'd Concil. Tom. 4. p. 1789. There is also another Letter to Peter the Patriarch of Jerusalem, concerning the Depo∣sition of Anthimus, Gr. Lat. in the Act. 1. of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, Conc. Tom. 5. p. 47. Cave p. 407.]

St. EPHREM Patriarch of Antioch.

ST. Ephrem, altho a Syrian by Nation, understood perfectly the Greek Tongue. After he had pass'd thro Secular Offices, he arriv'd at the Dignity of a Count in the East, and was promoted to the See of the Church of Antioch, about the Year 526. He signaliz'd himself chiefly by the great Alms he gave. He compos'd many Treatises, of which three Volumes fell into the hands of Photius, who assures us, That all the Works of this Author were written in Defence of the Doctrine of the Church, and of the Holy Council of Chalcedon. The same Author makes long Extracts out of those which he had seen.

The first is a Collection of divers Pieces, whereof the first is a Letter address'd to Zenobius Scho∣lasticus of Emesa, who was infected with the Error of the Acephali. St. Ephrem there defends the Letter of St. Leo, and the use of the Trisagion. He observes in the first place, that the Orientalists attribute to Jesus Christ, this Epithet in praise of him, Holy, holy, holy, and then they add, who was crucified for us; whereas those of Constantinople and the West refers this Epithet to the Trinity, and therefore cannot add, who were crucified, because the three Divine Persons cannot be subject to Sufferings: That in many Churches of Europe, instead of these words, Who were crucified for us, are put these other words, Holy Trinity, have pity on us. He adds, That according to these two diffe∣rent senses, this Expression may be us'd or not us'd, but that the Hereticks Acephali having abus'd it, he thought fit not to use it at all. After this Remark he undertakes the Defence of St. Leo's Letter; and observes, that we must not compare what St. Leo says, when he speaks of the Incarnation, with what the Fathers say when they speak of the Divinity, but with those places where they speak of the Incarnation. He proves afterwards, that St. Leo in this Letter acknowledg'd the two Natures in the Union of one Person only, and plainly condemn'd the Error of Nestorius. In the second Chap∣ter he proves, that the Expressions which this Pope us'd to denote the difference of the Natures and Operations, were agreeable to those of the Greek Fathers, and even to the Doctrine of St. Cyril. In the third he proves, that the Articles which are added to note the distinction of the two Natures, do not signifie that there are two Persons in Jesus Christ, but only two Natures united with an insepa∣rable Union. In the fourth and fifth he defends some particular Expressions of St. Leo, by compa∣ring them with the modes of speaking, us'd by the other Fathers, which are altogether like them.

This Letter to Zenobius was follow'd with many others: There is one to the Emperor Justinian, wherein he commended this Prince for being Religions; another concerning the Monks who liv'd in the Desert, wherein he gives good 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Piety. In the third he maintains that the Acts of the Sy•…•… Decision of A•…•… contain nothing contrary to Faith. The fourth was written to An∣thimus himself, after 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was past against him: He does not dissemble his Approbation of Con∣demning him; but he declares thoe he would have him receiv'd, tho with very much Precaution. There is a fifth Letter to Domiti•…•…, about the manner in which the two Natures are united in Je∣sus Christ; and a sixth to Syneleti•…•… of Tarsus, wherein he explains the Judgment of the Fathers a∣bout the Union of the two Natures. The seventh was address'd to Anthimus Bishop of Trebizonde against the Error of Eutyches; wherein he p••••ises Justinian as a most Catholick Prince. The eighth was to one Persa•…•…, called Barses, wherein be explains the Mystery of the Trinity and the Incar∣nation by the Scripture. The ninth was address'd to the Monks who desir'd to be undeceiv'd of the Errors which they held, by showing them from Testimonies of the Fathers, that the Actions of the two Natures are found in one Person only. This Letter was follow'd with the Synodical Letter of a Council held by St. Ephrem, against Syncleticus Bishop of Tarsus, and against the Monk Stephen his Chaplain, who was accus'd of the Eutychian Errors: In it is explain'd this famous Maxim of St. Cy∣ril, That there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, by saying, that he us'd the Word Nature, for that of Person: There it is noted that Syncleticus did make Confession of the true Faith before the end of the Council. There was after this a Letter to Magnus Bishop of Berraea, wherein St. Ephrem ju∣stifies the Doctrine of the fourth General Council, that Jesus Christ was composed of two Natures, and proves that this Expression, That there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, was us'd against those who separated the two Natures, but not against those who distinguish'd them, tho they were united in one and the same Person. There was another Letter to the Monk Eunoius, about Corrup∣tion and Immortality, wherein he proves that Immortality was a Perfection of our Nature before its Fall, and that Corruption was an Imperfection. After these Letters follow seven Sermons: The first upon the Festival of the Prophets; the second upon the Feast Christmas; the third upon the Fasts of the Year; the fourth about the Instruction of Catechumens; the fifth about the Feast of St. Michael, which was preach'd at Daphne, the Suburbs of Antioch; the sixth about Lent; the se∣venth about a Sunday of Lent; the eighth to the Novices in the four first days of their Baptism. This is what is contain'd in the first Volume of St. Ephrem's Works, which fell into the hands of Photius.

The second contains four Treatises. In the first he explains the sense of St. Cyril in his Letter to Successus, wherein he opposes the Heresie of the Severians: In the second he answers Anatolius Scho∣lasticus, about those things wherein he desir'd to be instructed. The third was an Apology for the Council of Chalcedon, address'd to two Monks of Cilicia, call'd Domnus and John; and the fourth, An Admonition to the Monks of the East, who were entangled in the Errors of the Severians. Pho∣tius makes long Extracts out of these four Treatises. The Extract out of the first is about the U∣nion and Distinction of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, which he confirms by the Testimonies of St. Cyril and other Fathers. The Extracts out of the second inform us, that Anatolius had propos'd five Heads of Questions to St. Ephrem: The first, Whether Jesus Christ is yet in Flesh. 2. How he being descended from the Children of Adam could be Immortal. 3. What proof there is that the Apo∣stle St. John is yet alive. 4. How Adam, being created Immortal, could be ignorant of what was useful for him. 5. What is meant by these words of God, Behold, Adam is become like one of us. As to the first Question, he proves by many Passages of Scripture, that Jesus Christ has still his Flesh. As to the second he says, That whether it be affirm'd that Adam was created Mortal or Immortal, 'tis certain that the death of the Body and Soul was the effect of the Sin which he committed by his Free-will; and that tho Adam by his Nature was not Immortal, yet he had not died unless he had finned. To the third he answers, That he knew by Tradition that St. John was not dead, no more then Elias and Enoch, and that this Consequence might be inferr'd from the words of Jesus Christ concerning him in his Gospel, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you? That it cannot be concluded from thence that he was Immortal, but that he was reserv'd for the Day of Judgment: That if Eusebius has noted the number of the years that he liv'd, this is to be understood of the years that he was upon Earth: That the Acts of the Life of this holy Apostle make it credible, that he disappear'd all on a suddain: Nevertheless, he says that this Question does not concern the Faith; but that it is always profitable in this kind of Questions to take the better side. Upon the fourth Question, he says, that we must not wonder, that Adam, tho immortal, did not know what was useful for him, since the same thing happen'd to the bad Angels. As to the last Question, he says, that these words, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, are an Irony which God uses to upbraid the Man for his Sottishness, or that God speaks according to the false imagination of Adam, to cover him with shame.

The Extracts out of the third Book are Citations out of many Works of the Fathers, to shew that the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon, which recognizes two Natures in Jesus Christ is not new, but the ancient Doctrine of the Church. He cites, besides the Authors that are known, as St. Peter of Alexandria, St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the St. Gregories of Neocae∣sarea, Nazianzum and Nyssa, Amphilochius, St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, Proclus and Paul of Emesa, Atticus of Constantinople, St. Cyril of Alexandria; he cites, I say, besides these Au∣thors,

the Books of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, a Book of Hilary about Faith and Unity, one Cyria∣cus Bishop of Paphos, who, as he says, was one of the Fathers of the Council of Nice, the suppositi∣tious * 1.34 Letters of Pope Julius, and one nam'd Erecthius. Of these Authors there are but five who made use of this Expression, There is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, who are Gregory of Neo-caesarea, St. Athanasius, Julius, St. Cyril, and Erecthius. He shews that the sense wherein this man∣ner of speaking ought to be taken, does not exclude the two Natures, since they themselves acknow∣ledg'd them.

He goes on in the Extracts of the fourth Book to quote passages of the Fathers, to prove that the Divinity and Humanity of Jesus Christ are two different Natures. Among these last he cites St. E∣phrem of Syria, a Letter of Simeon, and of Baradanus to Basil of Antioch, and another Letter of the same to the Emperor Leo, and a Letter of James to Basil the Bishop.

Photius neither says any thing, nor makes any Extracts out of the third Volume of St. Ephrem, so that we have no knowledge of it. What Photius says and relates out of the two former, gives us a great Idea of this Author, and informs us, that he had read many of the Works of the Fathers, and that he reason'd very well about the Mysteries of our Religion. He died in the Year 544.

PROCOPIUS of Gaza.

PRocopius the Sophist of Gaza liv'd in the sixth Age: He applied himself earnestly to the study of the Commentators upon the Holy Scripture, and made a Collection of all that they had written upon the Octateuque, copying out their very words. But this work being of a prodigious thickness, he abridg'd it, and put it in order, suppressing what he found said by many, and so made a continued Commentary, made up of the Expositions of the ancient Commentators, yet without na∣ming them. His Commentary upon Genesis and the Pentateuque is very large, and chiefly upon Ge∣nesis: What he wrote upon the Books of Kings and Chronicles is very short; and indeed they are, properly speaking, nothing but Scholia, wherein he reports the different Translations of the Text, and explains the sense of the Words. Perhaps these Scholia are only an Extract out of his Work: For Photius assures us, that the Commentaries of this Author were very copious, and written after one and the same manner. However this be, the Commentary upon Isaiah is very long; wherein he relates the Text entire, notes the difference of Versions, and explains every word in particu∣lar.

This Commentator confines himself sufficiently to the literal sense; he remarks carefully the diffe∣rences of the Greek Versions, and even those of the Hebrew Text. He enlarges also upon the Histo∣ry, and sometimes upon the Morality: He touches but little upon Allegory; but sometimes he in∣sists upon little things, and upon the Exposition of those words which are clear of themselves, and do not need any Interpretation. Photius thinks his style very polite, but too rhetorical for a Commenta∣tor.

The Version of his Commentary upon the Octateuque was made by Clauserus from a Manuscript of the Library of Ausburg, and printed at Basle in 1555. in Fol. with his Notes upon the Books of Kings and Chronicles. In 1620, Meursius caus'd to be printed at Amsterdam in Quarto his Scholia upon the Books of Kings and Chronicles in Greek and Latine. In fine, in 1580, Carterius publish'd the Commentary of Procopius upon Isaiah, from a Manuscript of the Cardinal of Rochefoucault. This Work is printed at Paris in Greek, and Latin over against it, and is very carefully done.

The Anonymous Author of an Exposition of the Octateuque.

THis Author, who is mention'd by Photius in the 36th Volume of his Bibliotheque, liv'd under the Empire of Justinus. He had compos'd a Book, entitled, The Book of Christians, or An Expo∣sition * 1.35 of the Octateuque, dedicated to one nam'd Pamphilus. The style of this Work was mean, and the Syntax of it not extraordinary. He has proposed many Parodoxes altogether indefensible, which are more like Tales and Fables then any thing that is serious. Here follow some of them: That the Heaven and the Earth are not of around figure, but the Heaven is in the form of a Vault or an Arch: That the Earth is longer one way, and that its Extremities touch the Heaven; That all the Stars are in Motion, and that the Angels move them; with several other things of this Nature. He speaks also of

Genesis and Exodus, but as it were by the by. He dwells a long time upon the Description of the Tabernacle; he runs thro the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles; he says that the Sun is as big * 1.36 as the two Climates, that the Angels are not in Heaven, but above the Firmament, and amongst us; That Jesus Christ ascending into the Heavens, stay'd between the Heavens and the Firmament, that this is the place which is call'd the Kingdom of Heaven. These are some part of the Absurdities which this Author asserts: His Work was divided into Twelve Books. We have none of them now remaining, and what we have now said, shews sufficiently, how little reason we have to regret the loss of them.

The Monk Jobius.

THis is also an Author of the sixth Age, out of whom Photius has preserv'd long and excellent Extracts. The Monk Jobius wrote a Treatise of the Word Incarnate, divided into nine Books and 45 Chapters, upon those matters which were disputed in this Age concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation. Photius remarks, that he treated the Questions largely enough, but he gave not very good Solutions of them, contenting himself with what might probably satisfie, without searching deeply into the Truth; That his Doctrine was very Orthodox, both in this Work, and in what he wrote against Severus; that he was well-skill'd and vers'd in the Holy Scripture, and that he un∣dertook to write this Treatise at the desire of an honourable Person. This is what Photius observes in general upon this Work, of which he afterwards gives an Abridgment.

The first and second Book were for the Explication of this Question, Why is the Son made Man, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Reason that he gives for it is, That the Son bears the Name of the Image of the Father, and of his Reason, and that from these Titles it was reasonable that he should come to reform the Image of Man, and restore to him that Reason which he had lost. He thinks that the Birth of Jesus Christ in a Stable among Oxen and Asses, the Parable of the Nets cast into the Sea which took all sorts of Fish, the Piece of Silver which was found by St. Peter in a Fish, the Entrance of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem upon an Ass, and the Gift of Tongues, are Figures of this Truth. After this Preface, which appears not very grave, nor worthy of the matter he handles, In the third Book, which begins at the ninth Chapter, he gives another Reason why the Son of God was made Man: And that is, because it was reasonable, that he who created and form'd Man, should create him anew, and reform him: Now tho the Father and the Holy Spirit created Man as well as the Son, yet the Creation is attributed to the Son, and 'tis said, that by him the Father made all things. He demands afterwards, Why Redemption was not made by an Angel or a Man. And up∣on this Question he says, That Men have try'd many times to bring Salvation to Men, but with all they could do, they were not capable of saving one single Nation, how much more then was it im∣possible for them to redeem all Mankind, and to chain up the Devil who was become their Master. That no meer Man could do it, because none of them is free from sin: That neither did this agree to an Angel, to whom it did not belong to lead Spiritual Powers in triumph: That One being of the same Nature with the Rest, could not bring them into subjection; and that if St. Michael, di∣sputing with the Devil about the Body of Moses, durst not bring a railing Accusation against him, how much lefs could an Angel make us Children by Adoption. From this Question he passes to another, Why God did not redeem Men by his Divinity without making himself Man. He answers; That God having not done it, we should believe that he ought not to have done it. This is the best Answer, or rather the only reasonable one; and this being propos'd all the other become needless. In this place he shows, that tho God be Almighty, yet there are some things which he cannot do, because it would be a defect or imperfection to do them. He says moreover, That the Redemption of Man∣kind was a more excellent thing then his Creation, and that it is a more particular sign of the Love of God to us. He adds, That it was fit the Word should be made Man, for our Salvation, since all other means had been ineffectual. But, one may say, Why did he permit that Man should become wicked? why did he not create him necessarily good? If this had been so, he would have had no Free-will, and consequently he could have deserv'd nothing. Why did not he make him, may one say, like the Angels? This could not have been an advantage to Man, answers our Au∣thor, because God did not save the Angels who sinned. But we easily fall into sin. Yes, says he, and we rise again easily, God having left to Man a thousand ways whereby he may do Penance and save himself. He proposes to himself another very important Question, Why God made Man of two Parts of a different Nature? But he answers not this Question very well; for he only relates some passages of the Fathers, and says, That the Terrestrial Substance must have been adorn'd with the Union of a Spiritual Substance. He enquires, Why the Word was made Man; and he gives three Reasons for it. The first is, That he might give us an Example of Vertue. The second is, To de∣liver us from the Bondage of Sin. The third, To blot out Original Sin, and restore us to the state in which we were before Sin. He remarks that in the Trinity, the Father is consider'd as the first

Cause, the Son as the acting Cause, and the Holy Spirit as that which perfects: That for this rea∣son the Catechumens are seven days in a white Habit; that they are first baptiz'd, and then anoint∣ed * 1.37 with Oyl, and lastly made partakers of the precious Blood before the Bread be given them; and upon this Subject he makes very mystical Reflexions. Afterwards he gives three Reasons why Moses does not speak of the Creation of Angels. The first is, Because he wrote only for Men. The second, Because he would make God known by the visible Creatures. The third is, Lest it should be thought that the Angels created the World. He maintains that the Angels were not known till af∣ter the Promises which God made to Abraham. The fourth and fifth Book contain only two Chap∣ters, wherein he endeavours to prove, That it was more convenient that the Son should be made Man then the Father. The sixth, which begins at the 22th Chapter, contains the Question, Why the Titles of Creator, Redeemer and Judge are attributed to the Son? He says, That they agree well e∣nough to all the three Persons, but by way of excellence they are appropriated to the Son. He dis∣courses of the Order of the Persons of the Trinity, and of the Title Holy, which is given to each Per∣son. He cites upon this Subject St. Gregory Nazianzen, and the Books attributed to St. Denys the A∣reopagite.

In the seventh Book he observes three Changes of the World: The first from Idolatry to the Knowledge of one God by the Law; The second from the Law to the Gospel, which Reveals the Son and the Holy Spirit; And the third, which gives a perfect Knowledge of the Trinity in another Life. Upon this occasion he handles many Questions concerning the Names of the Father and the Son: He gives many Reasons why the Son was not Incarnate from the beginning of the World. He speaks of the knowledge of the Trinity which the Blessed shall have in another Life, of the Obscu∣rity of the Old Testament, and the Mysteries which it covers under the Letter of the Law.

In the eighth he handles two Scholastical Questions: The first is, If it be a good proof, that there is in God one Person of the Word, because God cannot be without Reason, why will it not follow from hence, that there is in this Word another Word, and so in infinitum. Photius remarks, That he endeavours to answer this Objection thirteen manner of ways, but that they are weak, and tho they may satis∣fie such Persons as are pious and religious, yet they afford matter of raillery to those who are of a contrary Disposition. In effect, these kind of Questions and Arguments can never produce any good Effects, but expose Religion to the Contempt of great Wits, and the Scoffs of the Impious. The other Question is no more useful, altho it be at present more common: 'Tis demanded, Why the Son and the Holy Spirit, proceeding both from the Father, the one is call'd the Son, and the other the Holy Spi∣rit; and why they have not both the Title of the Son? He could find no other Answer to this Question, but that this is the Custom, and that Men express, as they can, the Differences of the Divine Per∣sons, altho they comprehend them not. This Answer is ingenuous, very wise and reasonable.

In the ninth Book he treats of the Dignity and Graces of the Angels and Men compar'd together; and applies to them the Parable of the Prodigal Child. After this he enquires, How it can be that Jesus Christ should die for all, since there was an infinite number of Men dead before his Coming? He answers to this Question, That Jesus Christ preach'd the Gospel to the Dead, and that all those who have lived well, and believed in him, are saved. He enlarges here very much upon the Explication of another passage of Jesus Christ, I came not to call the Righteous, but Sinners to Repentance. After this he treats also of the state wherein Angels and Man were created, of the Fall of the one and the other; of the Reasons for which God redeemed Man, and not the Angels, &c. This is enough to discover to us that the Work of this Author was not very useful; that he delighted to start difficult and intricate Questions; that he gives extraordinary Sences to passages of Scripture; that he main∣tains Propositions which are indefensible: In a word, that we ought not much to regret the loss of his Work, whereof the Extracts related by Photius are but too long, and very tedious.

JUSTINIAN.

THe Emperor Justinian may be justly rank'd amongst Ecclesiastical Writers, for never Prince did meddle so much with what concerns the Affairs of the Church, nor make so many Constituti∣ons and Laws upon this Subject. He was perswaded that it was the Duty of an Emperor, and for the good of the State, to have a particular care of the Church, to defend it's Faith, to regulate Ex∣ternal Discipline, and to employ the Civil Laws and the Temporal Power to preserve in it Order and Peace. Upon this account he did not only make a Collection of the Laws made by the Princes, his Predecessors, about Ecclesiastical Discipline, but he added many to them.

Here follows the Catalogue and the Substance of them.

The third Novel regulates the number of the Clergy of the great Church of Constantinople, and fixes it to 60 Priests, 100 Deacons, 40 Diaconesses, 90 Sub-deacons, 110 Readers, 25 Chanters, and 100 Porters. It contains also, That it shall not be lawful for Clergy-men to remove from a lesser

Church to a greater, and that the Possessions of the Church shall be employed for the maintenance of the Poor, and other pious Works.

The fifth Novel contains Regulations concerning the Monks and the Monasteries; That a Mo∣nastery shall not be built until the Bishop comes to the place, to Consecrate the Ground where it is to be built, by Prayer and fixing a Cross in it: That the Habit of a Monk must not be given to those who present themselves immediately after they are entred into the Monastery; but that they ought to continue Probationers for three years in their Secular Habit; that during this time it shall be lawful for those who redeem them as Slaves to take them back again, and not after this time is past; That the Monks ought to abide and lye in one and the same place, except the Anchorets and Hesy∣castes, who have attained a great perfection. That a Monk who quits his Monastery shall lose all his Riches that he had at his entrance into it, which shall belong henceforth to the Monastery. That a Man or a Woman who enter into a Monastery, may dispose of their Possessions before they enter into it; but if they enter into it without disposing of them, their Possessions belong to the Mona∣stery, except the fourth part, which belongs to Children, or the Portion of a Daughter if she be married, and except that which they might have given. That if any Person abandon his Monaste∣ry to go into the Militia, he cannot enter into any but that of the Judges of the Provinces. That if a Monk go from one Monastery to another, his Possessions shall remain with the first Monastery. That the Abbots ought not to receive the Monks of another Monastery. That if a Monk enter in∣to Orders he is forbidden to marry. That the Bishop must choose an Abbot without respect to his Age, but only to his Merit.

The sixth Novel is about the Qualifications which those Persons ought to have who are Ordained. It contains, That he who would be ordained Bishop, should be of a good Life and good Reputation; That he should be one that was never engaged in the Military Service of the Governours or the Palace: That an ignorant Lay-man ought not to be promoted all on a sudden to this Dignity: That he must be one who was never married but once, and also one who was not espoused to a Widow; that he must have been for some time a Monk or a Clergy-man; that he must be one who did not purchase his Ordination: That if any oppose his Ordination, and make any Objection against him, the Accusation shall be examined before he be Ordained: That a Bishop cannot be longer then one year out of his Diocese, upon any pretence for any Business whatsoever: That none can come to Court unless he be permitted by his Metropolitan; or if he be a Metropolitan by the Patriarch; and that he cannot desire Audience of the Emperor, unless he give an account to the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople, or to the Surrogates of the Diocese whereof he is, of the occasion of his Jour∣ney.

That the same Precautions shall be observed proportionably in the Ordination of inferiour Clergy-men: That such shall be chosen as are able Men, of a good Life, who have not been married but once, who have no Concubine, and are not espoused to a Widow-woman.

That Diaconesses shall be Ordained only of Virgins, or of Widows who were never married but once, and who have passed the fiftieth year of their Age. That if it happen that any younger are Ordained, they shall enter into a Monastery: That as to others, they shall dwell alone, or only with their Father, their Son, or their Brethren.

That 'tis forbidden, not only for Priests and Deacons; but also to Sub-deacons and Readers, to quit their Station, under pain of serving in the Militia.

That there shall not be too great a number of Clergy-men.

The seventh Novel contains many Regulations for preventing the Alienations or Prejudicial Ex∣changes of the Possessions of the Church.

The eight grants to the Bishop of Justinianaea, being the place of Justinian's Birth, the title of Metropolitan, and also of Archbishop or Exarch of the two Dacia's, of the second Maesia, of Dordania, of the Province of Prevala, of the second Macedonia, and of the second Pannonia.

The vast number of useless Clergy-men was so great a charge to the Churches and People, and it was so difficult to prevent it, that Justinian was forced to make another Novel, wherein he forbids to Ordain Clergy-men for the great Church in the room of those who die, willing them to take of those who are supernumerary in the other Churches. This Novel is the sixteenth.

The 22th is of Marriages. There Justinian treats first of the Causes, of the Dissolution of Mar∣riages. He distinguishes them into two sorts. The first are those which he calls ex bona gratia, be∣cause it is to be presumed that both Parties are willing. 1. When one of the two who are joyned toge∣ther makes a Vow of Chastity. 2. When the Husband is impotent for the space of three years. 3. When he is a Captive, or absent for the space of five years, without hearing any tidings of him, but not when he is a Slave, or condemned to the Mines, or exiled and banish'd for ever. 4. That nevertheless, if a Woman be espoused who is found to be a Slave, the Marriage shall be null for the future, unless he was her Master who married her as a Free-woman, in which case she shall continue free. 5. Constantine had permitted a Woman, whose Husband had been four years in the Wars without writing to her, or giving her any Marks of his Affection, to marry another.

Justinian repeals this Law, and ordains that a Woman cannot marry again till the end of ten years, and also till she has sollicited her Husband to return, and presented her Petition to his Captain or his Colonel, whereby it may be evident that he has no mind to return to his Wife.

These are the Causes of the Dissolution of Marriages which Justinian calls ex bona gratia.

The other Causes are those which are Rigorous: As, if a Man or a Woman are convicted of Adultery, or Murder, or Poisoning or Theft, or Treason, or Robbery, or any other Crime; and if it happen that the Woman is found guilty of these Crimes, she shall continue five years without being capable of marrying again; and also if it be she who convicts her Husband of them, she shall at least continue one year before her second Marriage. Justinian adds also three Causes for which Women may be Divorced; If they make themselves Miscarry; If they bathe with other Men; If they speak of Marriage to others while their Husband is alive. The other Titles of this Novel con∣cerns Civil Effects.

The 40th Novel permits the Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem to sell the Houses which it had in the City.

The 42th is the Edict against Anthimus, Severus, Peter and Zoaras, related in the fifth Coun∣cil.

The 43th grants to the great Church 1100 Shops free from Taxes, and deprives all others of the same Priviledge.

The 46th is of the Alienation of the Possessions of the Church, and of the Payment of Debts.

The 55th confirms the preceding, and permits the Exchanges of Possessions, and the long Leases of Lands among the Churches.

The 56th forbids to exact any thing for the Registring of Letters of Ordination, but it allows to receive what had been the Custom to pay for it in the great Church.

In the 57th its Ordained, That when Clergy-men quit the Church which they serve, others shall be put in their places, who shall enjoy the Revenues. In it 'tis forbidden that Founders should place Clergy-men in the Churches by their own Authority; only they are allow'd the Right of presenting them to the Bishop.

The 58th forbids the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries in private Houses.

The 59th regulates Ecclesiastical Fees, chiefly for Funerals.

The 65th contains a particular Order about the Revenues of the Churches of Mysia.

The 67th forbids to make Chappels without the Bishops' leave. It orders those who build them to furnish them with things necessary: It forbids Bishops to forsake their Churches, and regulates the manner of making Alienations of the Possessions of the Church.

The 76th is an Interpretation of the Law which forbids Monks to dispose of their Possessions, in favour of those who were entred into a Religious House before this Law was publish'd.

The 77th allows to Bishops the Knowledge and Decision of the Causes which concern Religious Men and Women.

The 81st exempts him from Paternal Power who is made a Bishop.

The 83d ordains, That if any one has any Civil Affair with a Clergy-man, he shall first apply himself to his Bishop: That if the Bishop cannot be Judge of it, either because of the nature of the Business, or for some other Difficulty, then he may apply himself to the Judges: That if it be a Cri∣minal Cause, then the Civil Judges shall take Cognizance of it; and if they judge the Party accus'd to be guilty, then he shall be Degraded by his Bishop before he be Condemned by the Secular Judge: That if it be an Ecclesiastical Fault, which deserves only an Ecclesiastical Penalty, the Cognizance of it shall belong to the Bishop only.

The 86th Empowers the Bishops to oblige the Judges to do Justice to Parties, and also to judge them when the Judges are suspected.

The 111th grants the Prescription of forty years to Churches.

The 117th contains the Reasons for which a Divorce may be granted. A Man may divorce his Wife, if she has conspir'd against the State, if she is convicted of Adultery, if she has attempted her Husband's Life, if she has dwelt or wash'd with Strangers against her Husband's will, if she be pre∣sent at Publick Sports in spite of him. The Woman may also be parted from her Husband, if he be a Criminal to the State, if he has attempted her Life, if he would have prostituted her, if he cohabits with other Women after his Wife has admonish'd him to forsake their Company. He for∣bids the Dissolution of Marriages which are made with the Consent of both Parties, unless it be for a reasonable Cause, as to preserve Chastity. Justinian repeals here what he had Ordain'd concern∣ing Persons who were in the Army, and Ordains, That it shall never be lawful for a Woman to mar∣ry again, unless she has sufficient Proof or Witnesses, whereby it may appear that her Husband is dead.

The 120th contains many Orders concerning the Revenues of the Church.

The 123th is one of those which contains most Regulations of Ecclesiastical Discipline. The first concerns the Ordination of Bishops. Justinian ordains, That the Clergy and Great Men should choose three Persons, after they have taken an Oath upon the Holy Gospels, that they shall not make this Election with respect to any Promise or Gift, or to favour their Friend: That these three Persons must be capable, and have the necessary Qualifications; that they must at least be 35 years old: That they may choose of those who are in Publick Offices, Curialis aut Officialis, provided they have been 15 years in a Monastery, and even one of the Laity, on condition that he shall not be ordain'd Bishop till he has been three years in Inferior Orders. He allows, That if three Persons cannot be

found who have the necessary qualifications, that they choose one or two of them. He adds, That it these to whom the Election belongs, do not choose in six Months time, he that has a Right to Or∣dain the Bishop may do it, by choosing one Person who has the necessary qualifications: When any of the Persons chosen is accus'd, his Cause ought to be heard, and 'tis forbidden to Ordain him until he has purg'd himself from the Accusation. Tis forbidden to offer, or give any thing for the Electi∣on or Ordination; But a Bishop is allow'd to give his Estate, or part of it, to his Church. 'Tis al∣lo allow'd to Patriarchs or Metropolitans to take a certain Sum of those who are Ordain'd, provi∣ded it exceed not that which it is the Custom to give, and that is here expresly set down. The fol∣lowing Titles contain divers Priviledges of Bishops, as deliverance from Bondage, exemption from Tutelage and publick Offices, discharging them from the Obligation to appear before Judges to make Oath, and exempting them from the Jurisdiction of Secular Judges: After which Bishops are for∣bidden to abandon their Churches. 'Tis ordain'd, That Archbishops and Patriarchs shall hold Synods once or twice in a year.

As to what concerns the Clergy, the Novel forbids to Ordain them unless they have studied, and understand their Religion, and be of a good Life. They must have no Concubine, nor Natural Children, but they must be Virgins, or such as are married only once to one Woman. Those who are ordain'd Priests ought to be 30 years old, the Deacons and Sub-deacons 23, the Clerks 18, and the Deaconesses 40 years old. If any Person be accus'd who is design'd for the Clergy, before he is Ordain'd, he must be clear'd from this Accusation. If he who is to be Ordain'd, has not a Wife, then, before he is Ordain'd, he must engage to live in Celibacy; but he who Ordains a Deacon, or Sub-deacon, may permit him to marry after his Ordination. That if a Priest, or Deacon, or Sub-deacon happen to espouse a Woman after his Ordination, he is to be turn'd out from the Clergy. That a Reader may marry, but if he contract a second Marriage, or espouse a Widow, he cannot ascend to a higher Dignity among the Clergy. 'Tis forbidden to Ordain those as Clerks, who are engag'd in Offices for the Publick, Curialis aut Officialis, at least unless they have been 15 years Monks. That if any marry after they have been among the Clergy, they shall return to their first Condition. 'Tis forbidden also to give any thing for Ordinations or Benefices. If a Slave be Or∣dain'd with the consent of his Master, he becomes free; if it be without his Master's knowledge, he may redeem him in a year; but however this be, if he be of the Clergy, he shall be restor'd to his Master. When any Person founds a Chappel, and endows it with Revenues necessary for the Maintenance of the Clergy, it is allow'd to Him and his Heirs to name the Clergy that shall serve in it, and those whom he names ought to be Ordain'd, if they be worthy and capable, if not, the Bishop may place there such as he shall judge more worthy. Liberty is given to all Clergy-men to dispose of their Estates: Penalties are appointed against all those who bear false witness. 'Tis or∣der'd that those who have any business against a Clergy-man, a Monk, a Deaconess, a Religious Man or Woman, do first apply themselves to the Bishop who shall judge them; if the Parties ac∣quiesce in his Judgment, it shall be put in execution; if not, the matter shall be examin'd before a Secular Judge. If he confirms the Bishop's Sentence, there shall lye no further Appeal, but if his Sentence be different, there shall be room for an Appeal. If it be a Criminal Cause, and the Bi∣shop has been inform'd of it, he shall Degrade the guilty Person, and after that the Secular Judge shall Condemn him. If a Civil Judge has been inform'd of it, he shall communicate the Informati∣ons to the Bishop. If the Informations be found just, and the Party accus'd be convicted, he shall degrade him.

As to the Bishops, and the Differences which they may have with their Brethren, or their Clergy, these ought to be brought before the Metropolitan or the Patriarch.

The following Chapters order, when, after what manner, and before whom the Bishops and Sur∣rogates which are at Constantinople, may be appointed. 'Tis forbidden to prosecute the Bishops or Clergy-men who are sent about the Affairs of their Churches. Justinian orders the Monks or Re∣ligious Persons not to go out of their Monastery for any Civil Affairs; but they must have a Pro∣ctor. He does absolutely forbid Clergy-men to keep strange Women, or Deaconesses to dwell with Men: He forbids any, under the severest Penalties, to disturb Divine Service in the Church, or in the Processions, which he orders not to be made without the Bishop and his Clergy.

The rest of the Novel concerns Monks. The Abbot ought to be chosen by all the Monks: The Habit ought not to be given to any who is presented to become a Religious Person, till after three years: The Monks should dwell all in one and the same place, except the Old or Infirm, who may have seperate Cells. The same thing shall be observ'd in the Convents of the Nuns: The Mona∣steries of Men and Women shall be parted. The Nuns have liberty to choose a Priest or a Deacon, to carry to them the Responses, or to administer to them the Communion; the Bishop shall approve him if he be found of a good Life; Nay, if they should choose one who is neither Priest nor Dea∣con, who is found worthy of this, Ministry, the Bishop shall Ordain him; but these Clergy-men are forbidden to continue in the Monastery. Justinian ordains also in favour of the Religious Men and Women, that such things as shall be given them, or left them as Legacies, on condition that they marry, or in case they have Children, shall be entirely their own. He declares that the Possessions of any one that enters into a Monastery do of right belong to the Monastery, except in the case of Legitimate Children, if they have any. He regulates the manner in which the Goods of a Man and his Wife shall be distributed, when one of the two, who are joyned together by Marriage, or both

of them▪ enter into a Monastery. He takes from Fathers and Mothers the power of di•…•…eriting their Children who enter into Monasteries: He orders that the Monks who go out of their Mona∣stery shall be punish'd by the Bishop. He enacts most severe Penalties against those who carry a∣way Religious Persons. In fine, he forbids Lay-men and Stage-Players to take the Habit of a Re∣ligious Man or Woman.

The Novel 131 contains the following Chapters.

In the first, 'tis ordain'd that the four first Councils shall be receiv'd.

In the second, the first place is given to the Pope of Rome, and the second to the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople.

The third grants to the Archbishop of Justinianaea, Jurisdiction over the Churches of Dacia, My∣sia, Dardania and Pannonia.

The fourth renews the ancient Rights and Priviledges of the Church of C••rthage.

The fifth exempts the Possessions of the Church from extraordinary Taxes.

The sixth grants the Prescription of 40 years to the Churches.

The seventh contains, that he who has begun to build a Church or Chappel, shall be oblig'd to fi∣nish it.

The eighth forbids the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries in private places.

The ninth Ordains, that a Legacy, given to God, shall belong to the Church of the House of the Testator: If it be to a Chappel without naming it, that the Legacy shall be given to the Poorest of the same place.

The tenth obliges Heirs to perform his Will, who by his Testament founded a Chappel or Ho∣spital.

The 11th empowers the Bishop to see pio••s Legacies pay'd.

The 12th repeals the Falcidian Law, as to what concerns pious Legacies, and Orders, that the Goods of the Deceas'd shall be employ'd for paying these Legacies.

The 13th forbids the Bishops to dispose by Will of the Goods they have got since they were made Bishops.

The 14th forbids Hereticks to buy the Possessions of the Church, or to build Churches; and particularly, to sell to Hereticks those▪ Possessions where there is a Church or Chappel built.

The 15th places those in the Rank of Tutors, who are Overseers to the Hospitals of Chil∣dren.

The 133th Novel repeats the Regulations which are made in the foregoing, wherein Monks are forbidden to dwell apart, to have any thing peculiar to themselves, and to go out of their Monaste∣ry. It adds to these, That the Abbot shall place at the Gate of the Monastery ancient Monks of known Probity, who shall hinder the Monks from going out without leave, and Secular Persons from entring in: That he shall not suffer his Monks to go out to walk, and that he shall carry them all with him to Divine Service, and after they shall return to the Monastery, they shall employ them∣selves in praising God, and reading the Holy Scripture: That he shall not suffer Women to enter in∣to the Monasteries of Men, nor Men into those of Women, upon any pretence whatsoever, no not tho they be Brethren or Sisters: There is no Case excepted but that of burying in the Monasteries of Women; for then it is allow'd that Men shall enter into them to make the Graves, but the Reli∣gious shall not appear before them, only the Abbess and the Woman-Porter shall be present to receive them, and shall make them go out assoon as they have finish'd their Work. Those who are to take care of Monasteries are enjoyn'd to see that Order and Discipline be maintain'd in them. 'Tis or∣der'd that those who manage the Affairs of Women, and carry the Communion to them, should be Aged, and of an Exemplary Life. The Religious Women are forbidden to speak to them; but they must address themselves to the Abbess, who has leave to come and speak to them at the Gate. The rest of the Novel concerns the Chastisement of the Religious who do not their duty; if their Fault be slight, they shall be admonish'd, and a short Penance shall be impos'd upon them; if it▪ be greater, a long Penance shall be enjoyn'd them; if they be incorrigible they shall be turn'd out. If a Monk shall be found at a Publick House, he shall be deliver'd into the hands of the Wardens, who shall chastise him, and deliver him into the hands of his Abbot.

The 137th Novel is concerning Ordinations. After a Preface, wherein Justinian▪ declares the Obligation that lay upon him to see the Canons observ'd, and of what importance it was, that those who are Ordain'd, should be worthy of this Dignity, he orders that the Ordination shall be made after this following manner. When a Bishop must be ordain'd, the Clergy and chief Men of the City, shall meet together, and choose three Persons who have the necessary Qualifications: That a Confession of Faith shall be given to them in writing; that the Forms of the Obligation of Baptism, and the other Prayers, shall be repeated unto them; That if any alledge any Crime against those who are chosen, the Accusations shall be examin'd; that if the Accuser do not convict him of it, or do not appear at the Trial, he shall be Depos'd, if a Clergy-man; and severely punish'd if a Lay-man. After this Justinian renews the Order which enjoyns Provincial Councils to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but he reduces them to one only in a year▪ in the Month of June or September. He Ordains, That all Cau∣ses shall be heard in this Council, which concern the Faith, or Discipline, or the Persons of Bishops, of Priests, of Deacons, of other Clergy-men, of Abbots and Monks. He enjoyns also, that▪ with∣out staying for the time of the Councils when any of those Persons are accus'd, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shall

take 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of t•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 ••g••inst ••he Metropolitan▪ the Metropolitan shall judge of t••••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••d the B••••••op of that which concerns the Clergy and Abbots. * 1.38 He 〈…〉〈…〉 the People with a ••oud Voice, and after 〈…〉〈…〉 of the Obl••tion and the Prayers of Baptism. In fine, he commands the Governours of Provinces to take in hand the Execution of these Orders, and to constrain the Bishops to hold Synods.

The 140th Novel restores the ancient C••••tom, whereby married Persons were allow'd to separate, with the Co••sent of one another without any other Form•…•….

The 146th Novel allows the Jews to read the Bible in the Hebrew, and in Latin according to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, bu•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them to use any other Greek Version but that of the Septuagint. It Or∣dains also that those of the Sect of the Sadducees, who teach that there is no Judgment nor Resurrecti∣on, shall not be pe•…•… ••o ••o••d any A••••embly.

Besides these Novels 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which regulate almost all the Discipline of the Church in his time, we have also of his a Letter and Confe••sion of Faith in Latin, which he sent to Pope John, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈…〉〈…〉 Ag•…•…, of which we have already spoken, another Letter to the fifth Council, and two Letters concerning an Enquiry, to know whether the name of Theodorus of Mop∣suesta was in the Dypti•…•… reg••••ter'd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Act•• of the fifth Council. [His Novels were printed by themselves ••n Greek by 〈◊〉〈◊〉, at Paris in 1553, oct••vo, by Schringer•••• ibid. 1558. Gr. Lat. at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 15••••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ 399.]

We have in Greek and Latin his Treatise and Letter against the Errors of Origen, the Confession of Faith in opposition to the th••ee Chapters, and a particular Letter against Theod••rus of Mopsuesta, without including his Edict against Anthimus, that are printed in the Council under Menn••••, which makes the 41th Novel. We shall have occasion to speak of these Monuments, when we give the History of the fifth Council.

We must not imagine that Justinian co••po••'d these Acts and Treatises himself, who, if we may believe Suid••, had little o•• no Learning. But it must be consess'd, that the Persons whom he em∣ploy'd, were very learned, and understoood very well the Discipline of the Church and the Canons; that they wrote in such a manner, as was very worthy of the Majesty of a Prince; for there is no∣thing better dictated then the Laws, the Edicts, and Letters which go under the name of Justinian: In them you may see the marks of Gravity, Wisdom and Majesty, which are not to be found in the Laws of other Princes. This Emperor begun his Reign in 527, and died in 565.

DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS.

DI•…•…, surnam'd Exigu••••, was born in Sc••thia, a Monk by Profession, flourish'd after the be∣ginning of the sixth Age, till the Ye••r 540: He understood very well Greek and Latin, and had also studied the Holy Scripture. Cassi••dorus, who convers'd with him, wrote his Panegyrick in the 23th Chapter of his Book of Divine Learning. At the desire of Stephen Bishop of Salenae, he made a Collection of C••••on•• that were ••••••ely translated, which contains, besides these which were in the Code of the Universal Church, the 50 first Canons of the Apostles, those of the Council of Sa••dic••, and 138 Canons of the Councils of Afric. This Code of Canons was approv'd and recei∣ved by the Church of R••m••, according to the Testimony of Cassiodorus, and by the Church of France and other Latin Churc••e••, according to that of Hinemarus. It was printed by the care of Mr. Justel in 1628, with a Vers••on of the Letter of St. Cyril, and of the Council of Alexandria against Ne∣storius, which is also the Transla••ion of Di••nysius Exigu••••. This Work being finish'd, he thought fit to joyn with them the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Popes, and therefore made a Collection of them, which be∣gins with those of Siricius, which are the ••••rst, and ends with those of Anasta••ius: There has been since added to them ••••ose of Hilary, Simplici••••, Felix and other Popes down to St. Gregory. This second Collection w•••• ins••rted by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into his Bibli••theea of Canon Law. At the beginning of this Collection there are the Epi••tles of Popes, a Letter of the Author address'd to Julianus a Priest by the Title of St. Anasta••••a▪ wherein he praise•• Pope Gelasius.

This Diony•••••••• Exig••••s was the first who introduc'd the way of counting the years from the Birth of Je•••••• Christ, an•• who fix'd it according to the Epecha of the vulgar Aera, which is not there∣fore the ••rue one. He wrote also two Letters upon E••ster in 525, and 526, which were publish'd by Father ••••tav••us, and by Bucherius, and made a Cycle of 95 years. F. Mabi•…•…on publish'd a Let∣ter of h•••• written to E••gippius, about the Translation which he made of a Book of Gregory Nyssen, concerning the Creation of Man, p. 2. A•…•…ct. p. 1.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 assures that he understood the Greek so perfectly, that casting his Eyes upon a Greek Book he could read it in Latin, and a Latin Book in Greek. This Talent of his makes it very pro∣bable that he Translated Greek Books well. Yet we have nothing under his Name but the Versions of the Canons, the Version of the Letter of St. Cyril, the Version of a Letter of Pr••terius about

Easter, the Version of the Life of St. Pachomius, the Version of a Discourse and two Letters of Pro∣clus, and the Version of the Treatise of St. Gregory Nyssen about the Creation of Man. There is al∣so * 1.39 attributed to him the Translation of the History of the Invention of St. John Baptist's Head, written by the Abbot Marcellus. He gives the sense faithfully and intelligibly, but his words are not always well chosen.

CASSIODORUS.

MArcus Aurelius Cassiodorus, a Senator, descended of an illustrious Family, born at Squillaca a City of Calabria, about the Year 470, was promoted to the chief Offices at Court, by Odo∣acer King of the Herculi. This King being vanquish'd by Theodoric King of the Goths, Cassiodorus had no less Reputation in the Court of this last Prince, then of the former. He was made Gover∣nor of Calabria, and afterwards preferr'd many times to the Dignity of Questor, Master of the Palace, Profect Praetorio, and was made Consul in 514. He was most powerful at the Court of the Kings Theodoricus, Atharicus and Vitiges. Altho he was in the Court of those Arian Princes, yet he never departed from the Catholick Faith, but united the Title of a Good Christian with that of an Honou∣rable Person and a Great Magistrate. At the Age of 69 or 70, desiring to think more seriously of his Salvation, he retir'd from Court and founded the Monastery of Vivarium in his own Country. Father Garretus, who publish'd his Works, h••s taken great pains, and made a formal Dissertation on purpose to prove that he follow'd the Rule of St. Benedict; but it is a question about which few People will trouble themselves. However this be, Cassiodorus govern'd this Monastery for the space of 20 years; and there he died in peace, being aged 90 years.

The Works of this Author are considerable, but there are many of them which are not about Ecclesiastical Matters. They are all collected together in the last Edition made at Roan in 1679.

The first Tome contains all the Letters and Publick Acts which he dedicated when he was in Of∣fices. This Work is entitled, Divers Letters, collected together by Cassiodorus himself, and divided into twelve Books. The five first contain the Letters which he wrote in the name of King Theodoric, and under his Reign; the sixth and seventh contain divers Forms; the eighth, ninth and tenth con∣tain the Letters written in the Names of the Kings Athalaricus, Theodatus, and Vitiges; the two last contain the Letters which he wrote when he was Prefect Praetorio. There are some of them writ∣ten to all sorts of Persons, and about all kind of Affairs, so that they contain a wonderful variety of rare and curious things. They are all well written, full of good Sense, and very good Mora∣lity.

The Tripartite History is not properly the Work of Cassiodorus. Epiphanius Scholasticus transla∣ted into Latin the three Greek Historians, Socrates, Sozomon, and Theodoret; but as these Authors wrote the History of the same Time, so in reading them there is often found a Repetition of the same things: And Cassiodorus made out of these three one Body of History, by extracting out of every one what he says in particular, and avoiding the Repetition of what is said by more then one.

The Chronicon of Cassiodorus is very fuccinct, and contains only the Names of Consuls, and the principal Transactions: It is not very exact for Chronology.

He wrote the History of the Goths, but there remains nothing now but a little Abridgment of this Work made by Jornandes.

These are the Works contain'd in the first Tome of Cassiodorus.

The first Work of the second is his Commentary upon the Psalms, which he wrote in his Mona∣stery. He says himself in the Presace, That having renounc'd Secular Business and the Cares of the World, and begun to taste the sweetness of the Psalms, he was wholly addicted to the reading of this Book; and finding in them some dark places, he had recourse to the Commentary of St. Austin, wherein he found an infinite abundance of matter, and that he himself had added some later Disco∣veries. After this Commendation of the Psalms, and observing that they are sung to the Office of the Night and the Morning, at the first, third, sixth, ninth hour, and at Vespers, he proposes some general Remarks upon the Psalms. 1. He enquires what is Prophecy, and defines it, A way of speaking of Divine Things with Majesty and Truth by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 2. He says, That the Names of Persons that are at the beginning of the Psalms, are not the Names of the Authors, but of those who were to sing them, and to play upon Instruments. 3. That the Title in finem, To the End signifies that the Psalm has relation to Jesus Christ. 4. That the Psalter is pro∣perly an Instrument of Musick in the form of a D. That it may be applied to all Songs that are play'd upon this Instrument, and that it agrees in a particular manner to David's Work. 5. That a sweet and harmonious sound is properly call'd a Psalm, but a Song is a singing with the Voice, and

when the Voice accompanies the ••••strument, then it is call'd a Psalm Song. 6. That a Pause is rather a mark of dist••••ction and change of the Person, according to the Opinion of St. Austin, * 1.40 then a Continuation according to that of St. Jerom. 7. That the Psalms are but one Book divi∣ded into five parts. 8. That Jesus Christ is there represented both as God and as Man, and as God-man. 9. That in his Commentary he will first explain the Title of the Psalm, and then divide it into parts, and after that discover the literal and spiritual sense of it; and then he will declare the design of it, and lastly give the Sum of the whole Psalm, or dispute against some Error. 10. He speaks of the Eloquence and Usefulness of the Psalms. 11. He praises the Church. In fine, he di∣vides the Psalter into twelve parts, which he applies to the twelve states of Jesus Christ. These are the Prolegomena of Cassiodorus to his Commentary upon the Psalms. His Commentary is very large, he has taken many things, not only out of St. Austin, but also out of the other Fathers: It contains much Morality.

The Commentary upon the Canticles is none of Cassiodorus's, altho it goes under his Name in some Manuscripts, since the Author of this Commentary quotes the words of St. Gregory the Great, besides that this Commentary has not the style of Cassiodorus.

He wrote Commentaries upon the Epittles of St. Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation, but they are now lost.

It cannot be express'd, how many useful things are contain'd in his Treatise of the Institution to Divine Learning, or an Instruction for Learning Theology. He observes, in the Preface, that being troubled that there should be Masters for Human Learning, and Schools founded for teaching it, but none for Divine Learning, he had endeavour'd, with the help of Agapetus, to found Schools of Theo∣logy at Rome, as there had been formerly at Alexandria, and in his time at Nisibis: But the War hin∣dring him of Success in his Design, he thought it his duty to write these Books, as an Introduction to the Study of Theology. He would have the Holy Scripture studied in the first place, beginning at the Psalms, and then the Reading of the Fathers to follow. After he has spoken of the Com∣mentaries of the Fathers, upon the Books of the Bible, and of their Writings, he mentions the four General Councils. Afterwards he gives an account of the different divisions of the Books of Scrip∣ture; he speaks of the Hebrew Text and the Versions: from thence he passes to the Ecclesiastical Historians and Latin Fathers. He adds Remarks about the Order wherein the Holy Scripture is to be read, about the Observations which may be made use of about the necessity of understanding Cosmography, about the study of Human Learning, about Orthography and the Sciences.

The Treatises of Cassiodorus about the Sciences and Liberal Arts concern not Ecclesiastical Matters: that of the Soul has a nearer relation to the Dogmes of the Church. There he maintains, that the Soul is spiritual, that God created it, that it is immortal, and that it has no quantity nor extension. Having spoken of the Powers of the Soul, he says that it contracts Original Guilt, from which it is not deliver'd but by Baptism, and that during this Life it is capable of Vertues and Vices. Lastly, he says, that the Soul being separated from the Body by Death, is no more capable of doing Good or Evil, nor subject to the Infirmities of this Life; but that it expects either with Joy or Sorrow the Time of the General Judgment, at which it receives the reward of its good Actions, or the punish∣ment due to its Crimes * 1.41. And then having described the Happiness of Paradise, he concludes with an excellent Prayer.

The style of Cassiodorus is of a middle size; he writes cleanly enough for his time: He is full of Sentences and very useful Moral thoughts.

The Works of Cassiodorus which had been printed separately, were all collected together by the ca••e of Father Garetus, of the Congregation of St. Maurus, and printed at Roan in 1679.

St. BENEDICT.

ALtho St. Benedict is more considerable among the Monks, then among Ecclesiastical Writers, yet he is rank'd among these also. He was born in the Province of Nursia, about the year 480. He was carried very young to Rome, from whence he retir'd to Sublacum, which is forty miles from Rome, where he shut himself up in a frightful Cave. There he continued for three years, without acquainting any body but St. Romanus, who let him down Bread by the help of a Rope: Being after∣wards known, the Monks of a neighbouring Monastery chose him for their Abbot. But he not a∣greeing with their way of Living, retir'd to his Desert, where many Persons came to him, and desir'd to put themselves under his Conduct; insomuch that in a short time, he built twelve Monasteries in

this place. From thence he pass'd in the Year 529, to the Mount Cassinus, where he laid down solid Foundations of an Order; which in a little time spread it self over all Europe. There is a diffe∣rence about the time of his Death, and his Disciples look upon this as a very important Question. As to us, it does not so nearly concern us as to insist upon it, and therefore we will suppose with Fa∣ther Mabillon, that he died in 543, or with the Author of the Treatise concerning the Hemina, in 547. St. Gregory in his Dialogues wrote the Life of this Saint, which is full of Miracles very ex∣traordinary. I shall not stay here to relate them, nor to enquire into the truth of them, this being no part of my Province.

The Rule of St. Benedict is the only Work that is truly his. St. Gregory thinks it better written and more prudent then all the rest, Sermone luculentam, Discretione praecipuam? 'Tis divided into 77 Chapters. St. Benedict there distinguishes four sorts of Monks; the Caenobites, who live in a Mo∣nastery, under the Government of an Abbot; the Anchorets, who having learn'd the Exercises of a Monastick Life in a Monastery, retire alone into the Deserts; the Sarabaites, who dwell two or three in the same Cell; and the Gyrovagi, who go from Monastery to Monastery, without staying in any place: He condemns these two kinds of Monks, and chiefly the last; and without insisting upon what concerns the Anchorets, he composes his Rule only for the Caenobites. There he speaks first of the Qualifications which an Abbot ought to have, after what manner he should serve for an Example to his Monks, and treat them all alike well, without showing more affection to one then another; how he should reprove, and even punish those who commit Faults. He proposes to them afterwards many Christian and Spiritual Maxims; he recommends to them Obedience, Silence and Humility; he notes the Hours for Divine Service by Day and Night, and the order and manner of repeating it. After this he speaks of the Punishments which should be inflicted on those who of∣fend: The first is Excommunication, or a Separation from the Fellowship of the Brethren, whe∣ther at Table, or at Prayers; the second is, the Chastisement of those with Rods, whom the Ex∣communication cannot reform; and the last is the Expulsion out of the Monastery. Nevertheless he permits a Brother to be received three times who is turn'd out for his Faults, provided he promise to amend. He orders, That the Monks have all things in common, and that every thing be at the disposal of the Abbot and under the care of the Steward; that in the distribution of things necessa∣ry for Maintenance, no respect is to be had to the Quality, but to the Weakness of the Brethren: He enjoyns the Brethren to serve in the Kitchin and Refectory by turns. He requires, that special care be taken of the Infirm, of Children, and Old Men; he appoints the Hours and the quantity of Meat and Drink; and Penances for lesser faults: He recommends to them Labour, and notes the hours for it; he provides for the Entertainment of Strangers; he forbids the Monks to receive Pre∣sents or Letters from their Kinsfolk: He leaves the Abbots at liberty to give Habits to their Religious proportion'd to the temper of the place where they are; yet he thinks that 'tis sufficient in temperate Places to give them a Cowle, a Tunique, and a Scapulary. He would not have the Monks com∣plain of the colour or coarsness of these Habits; but that they should take such as are given them, and such as are to be had in the Province where they are. The following manner wherein he would have one receiv'd who presents himself for admission into the Monastery, is very rude. He must patiently suffer for four or five days the Repulses and Rebuffs of a Porter; after this he must be put for some days into the Chamber of the Guests, where an ancient Man will come to speak to him, and to represent to him that which is the rudest thing in all the Rule: If he be obstinate the whole shall be read to him, but if he promise to observe it, he shall be admitted into the Chamber of the Novices, where he shall be try'd: At the end of six Months the Rule must be read over to him again, and if he be obstinate after this, it shall yet be read over to him at the end of four Months: But then if he promise to observe it, he shall be admitted, after he is given to understand that he can no more go out of the Monastery. 'Tis necessary also that he promise in the Oratory, before God and his Saints, and in the presence of all the World to change his Life, and continue stedfast in that Change; but first he must be requir'd to make this Promise, and to Subscribe this Demand with his Hand, or if he cannot write, another must write for him, and he must set his Mark to it. That if he has any Means, he must give them all away before he makes Profession, either to the Poor, or to the Monastery, with∣out reserving any thing to himself. If they be Parents who present a young Child, they must make the same Promise for him, and engage to give him nothing as his own proper Goods. As to the Priests which are presented, St. Benedict would not have them easily receiv'd; yet if they be importunate, they may be receiv'd upon condition that they will observe the Rule. Yet to them shall be granted the first places after the Abbot, the Power of giving Benedictions, and of Overseeing Divine Ser∣vice. As to Monks that are Strangers, they shall be receiv'd as Guests if they desire to tarry, and provided they be found to have liv'd well while they were among the Guests, they shall be admit∣ted, and the Abbot may also bestow upon them an honourable place: But if it be observ'd that they did not behave themselves well, they shall not only be deny'd Admission, but also be desir'd to with-draw. If the Abbot pleases, he may choose any one of his Monks to be Ordain'd Priest or Dea∣con, but this shall not exempt them from the Rule, nor from attending upon the Service of the Altar: He shall continue in the same station, unless the Abbot will bestow upon him a higher. The Degree among the Religious is reckon'd from the day that they enter into the Monastery. St. Benedict speaks here also of the Qualifications which the Abbot ought to have, and of those of the Prior, and of the Duty of the Porter. He forbids the Religious to go forth without the leave of the Abbot: Those

that go out, should at their going forth recommend themselves to his Prayers, and at their Return, they should lye prostrate on the Ground during the time of Divine Service: He recommends to the * 1.42 Monks to be respectful and meek to one another. Lastly, he declares that his Rule contains only the first Elements of a Religious and Spiritual Life and that the Books of the Fathers contain it in perfection.

There are several Disputes about the understanding of some places in this Rule, which I leave to the Disciples of St. Benedict, who take them for a matter of great moment: The Publick, which is much less concern'd about them, will eastly dispense with me for not relating them; for I do not think that the World will much trouble themselves to know, whether the Hemina mention'd by St. Benedict, be the half quart of Paris or St. Denis; whether the word Communion be always taken in the Rule of St. Benedict for the signs of Charity and Union, or if it be taken in some places for the Eucharist; whether the word Mess do signifie there in some places what we understand by it at pre∣sent, or whether it be always taken for the End or Duration of Divine Service, &c. There are not many besides the Disciples of St. Benedict, to whom these Questions can appear important. The common People are not concern'd in them, and the Learned who are not of the Order, will imploy their Curiosity and Learning upon other Subjects.

There are also attributed to St. Benedict a Letter to St. Remigius, a Sermon upon the Death of St. Placidai, a Discourse upon the Departure of St. Maurus, a Letter to the same Saint, an Order of the Monastick Life; but none of these Pieces is St. Benedicts.

Pope SILVERIUS.

THe News of the Death of Agapetus, which happen'd, as we have said, at Constantinople, being carried to Rome, Silverius the Son of Pope Hormisdas, was cohosen in his room. Anastasius af∣firms that this Election was not free, and that King Theodatus forc'd the Clergy to choose Silverius. He alledges also that he gave Money to the Prince to get himself chosen: But Liberatus, an Author more ancient and more credible then Anastasius, supposes that this Election was Canonical; and 'tis very probable that this Calumny against Silverius was invented to justifie the Intrusion of Vigilius. However this be, 'tis certain that Silverius was acknowledg'd by the Clergy and People as lawful Bishop of Rome.

Bellisarius was then at Rome with a powerful Army, and having taken the City of Naples, he ad∣vanced towards Rome. The Goths deposed King Theodatus, and plac'd in his room a brave Captain call'd Vitiges. He not finding himself strong enough to oppose Bellisarius, went out of Rome, and retir'd to Ravenna. The Romans informed Bellisarius of this, and receiv'd him into Rome, accord∣ing to the Pope's Advice. He entred into it victoriously in the Month of December, in the Year 536. But Vitiges returned quickly with an Army of 150000 Men, and laid Siege to Rome, which lasted a year and some days. The Pope Silverius having been chosen under a King of the Goths, and per∣haps by his Interest, was suspected at the Court of the Greek Emperor: besides this, he had decla∣red against Anthimus and the Asephali, whom the Empress Theodora maintained. The Deacon Vigi∣lius remained at Constantinople after the Death of Agapetus, who had for a long time aspired to the Bishoprick, and made use of this Occasion to get himself promoted to it. He promised the Em∣press, that if she would make him Pope he would receive Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus into his Communion, and that he would approve their Doctrine. The Empress not only promised to make him Pope, but also offer'd him Money if he would do what she desired. Vigilius having given the Empress all the Assurances that she could wish, departed with a secret Order addressed to Bellisarius to make him successful in his Design. Vigilius being come into Italy, found all things well prepared for him; the Siege of Rome was raised when he arrived there; but during the Siege Silverius was suspected to hold Correspondence with the Goths, and so he was rendred odious for refusing expresly to except the Empresses Proposals of receiving Anthimus. Thus Vigilius having deliver'd to Bellisa∣rius the Order which he brought, and having promised him two hundred pieces of Gold over and above the seven hundred which he was to give him, found no great difficulty to perswade him to drive away Silverius. For accomplishing this he made use of two Pretences, which we have alrea∣dy hinted, he caused him to come before him, and accused him of writing to the Goths, and prest him to approve Anthimus. There wanted not Forgers who counterfeited a Letter written in the Name of Silverius to the King of the Goths, to deliver up the City of Rome to him, nor false Wit∣nesses who deposed that he had this design. Bellisarius caused to bring Silverius before him, and sol∣licited him to satisfie the Empress, by approving the Doctrine of Anthimus, and then sent him back again. Silverius refusing to hearken to this Proposal, he caused him to be brought a second time in∣to his Palace, and discover'd to him what he was accused of: but having sworn to him that he should have liberty to go away, he was not seized. He was sent for the third time, and after his en∣trance

the Wife of Bellisarius upbraided him with his perfidiousness, and immediately he was stript of his Sacerdotal Habit, and his Clergy were told that he was Deposed; and an Order was sent to * 1.43 them to choose Vigilius in his room. Silverius was presently banish'd to Patava, a City of the Pro∣vince of Lyria. When he was arrived in this City, the Bishop animated with Zeal for Justice, went to wait upon the Emperor, and remonstrated to him, That it was a thing which •…•…ed to Heaven for vengeance, that the Bishop of a See so considerable as that of Rome, should be unjustly turned out. Justinian, who had no hand in this Negotiation, order'd that Silverius should be sent back into Italy, and that the Letter should be examined which he was charged to have written, that if it was found to be none of his, he should be restored to his See; but if it was found to be his, he should have the Title of a simple Bishop of some City. The Empress sent immediately Pelagius into Italy to hinder the return of Silverius. But the Order of the Emperor was executed so much the more easily, because Vigilius had fail'd in his Promise, both to the Empress, in not doing what she defin'd, and to Bellisarius, in not giving the Money which he had promised. So Silverius was carried back to Italy, but it was only to encrease his misery; for Vigilius fearing to be forced away from the Throne which he had invaded, performed the Promises which he had made, on condition that Silverius should be deliver'd into his hands. This was put in execution, he was deliver'd to the Guards of Vigilius, and he was banish'd into the Isles of Pontienna and Pandataria, which were over against the Mount Cirrellus, where he died of Famine in great misery, if we may believe Liberatus. Pro∣copius in his Secret History seems to insinuate that he was kill'd by one nam'd Eugenius, a Man de∣voted to Antonina the Wife of Bellisarius: but what Procopius says may be understood, not of the Death of Silverius, but rather of his Accusation or Apprehension.

The Letters attributed to Silverius are feigned upon his History.

The first wherein 'tis supposed that he upbraids Vigilius with his Crime, and that he condemns him, is dated under Prince Basil. Now there was not one of this Name in the time of the Pontifi∣cat of Silverius; and besides this it is Mercator's style, full of Barbarisms and Phrases of other Popes. In short, it cannot agree with the History, because 'tis supposed in it, that Silverius after his Depo∣sition assembled a Council, wherein he Anathematized Vigilius, which has not the least probabi∣lity.

The Letter of Amator Bishop of Autun to Silverius, sent with the Presents which this Bishop is supposed to make unto him, is also a Forgery, as well as the Answer of Silverius to this Letter: Both the one and the other are Mercator's style, and have the same Marks of Forgery with the other Letters forged by this Impostor.

The Pope VIGILIUS.

ALtho Vigilius was promoted to the See of Rome by a way altogether unjust, yet he continued in the possession of it after the Death of Silverius, and was acknowledg'd for a lawful Pope, with∣out proceeding to a new Election, or even confirming that which had been made. The Conduct which he had observed during his Pontificat, answer'd well enough to its unhappy beginning. He had at first approv'd the Doctrine of Anthimus, and that of the Acephali, to satisfie the Empress: but the fear of being turned out by the People of Rome, whom he hated, made him quickly recall this approbation; yet he did not by this gain the hearts of the Romans. They could not endure an Usurper, who having been the cause of the death of their lawful Bishop, would abuse them also: they accused him also of having kill'd his Secretary with a blow of his fist, and of having whipped his Sister's Son till he died. The Empress, who was not satisfied with him, because he had gone back from his word, sent Anthimus to Rome with an Order to bring him into Greece; and at his departure the People gave him all sorts of Imprecations. He was sometime in the Isle of Cicily, and arrived not at Constantinople until the 20th of January of the Year 547. The Affair of the three Chapters was then warmly disputed in the East: and Vigilius having learned in Sicily that they were condemned without his Concurrence, at first was very much troubled at it: He testified his dis∣content after his Arrival at Constantinople, but he quickly yielded to the Menaces and Intreaties of the Empress. Yet he would not grant all that was desired of him, and propos'd a General Council, thinking by that to gain time, without discontenting any body. Notwithstanding this, Justinian publish'd an Edict: Vigilius oppos'd it briskly, and thundred a Sentence of Excommunication against Theodorus of Caesarea, the Author of this Edict, and of Suspension against Mennas. He withstood the Condemnation of the three Chapters which was resolv'd upon in the fifth Council; he suffer'd himself to be banish'd rather then subscribe to it: Nevertheless, not being guided by Zeal for the Truth, but by his own Caprice, or Interest, he quickly condemned them after an Authentical manner, that he might return into Italy. During his absence Rome was taken and sack'd in 547, by Totila, and re∣taken in 553 by Narses General of Justinian's Army. The Romans being set at liberty, demanded their Bishop again, who had been absent now for many years. Justinian offer'd them to send him

back again to them, or if they had rather, to permit them to Ordain the Archdeacon Pelagius. They pray'd him to send them Vigilius, pro•…•…g to him that they would choose Pelagius after his Death. Justinian granted him to them. Vigilius •…•…ed in Sicily in 555; Pelagius his Successor was suspected to have contributed to his Death, but he purg'd himself by Oath upon the holy Gospels and the Cross.

We have already observ'd, that Vigilius, to get •…•…rius into his hands, had consented to all that the Empress desir'd by receiving into his Co•…•… the Bishops of the Faction of the Acephali, and approving their Doctrine, Liberatus relates the Letter which he wrote to them, and assures us, that it was accompanied with a Confession of Faith, wherein he condemns those who distinguish'd, the two Natures in Jesus Christ, and made Profession of believing one Christ only compos'd of two Natures; pronouncing an Anathema against •…•…se who admit two Forms in Jesus Christ, who did not acknowledge, that the Miracles and Sufferings belong'd to one and the same Christ, and did not own that the Word suffer'd, and particularly against Paulus of Samosata, Dioscorus, Theodorus and Theodoret. Baronius and Binius endeavour to make incredible, that this was not Vigilius's; but Li∣beratus is more to be believ'd then they, and Vigilius was certainly capable of doing it.

The second Letter of Vigilius address'd to Eucherius, is that of the first day of March in the Year 538. He answers this Bishop about certain A•…•…es concerning which he had consulted him. 1. He condemns those who under pretence of Ab•…•…ence superstitiously refrain from eating any Meat, think∣ing it forbidden, and evil in it self. 2. He orders the Canons of the H. See to be observ'd, concerning the solemn Administration of Baptism; and reproves those who cut off the Particle, And, in the Gloria Patri, between the Son and the H. Spirit, singing, Gloria Patri & Filio Spiritus Sancto, instead of, & Spiritus Sancto. 3. He says that he had sent to him who writes the Ecclesiastical Canons taken out of the Archives of the Church of Rome, made with respect to those, who having been baptiz'd in the Church, were re-baptiz'd by the Arians when they return'd to the Church. He adds, that nevertheless, their Pe∣nance may be diminish'd, in proportion to their fervor; but that they must not be receiv'd by that Im∣position of Hands, which is us'd to cause the Holy Spirit to descend, but by that which is us'd to re∣concile Penitents. 4. He thinks that a Church must not be Consecrated anew, which is rebuilt upon the same Foundations, but that it is sufficient to celebrate Mess in it. This Consecration was made by throwing Holy Water upon it; for to show that it was not necessary to consecrate it anew, he u∣ses this Expression, Nihil Judicamus officere, si per eam minime aqua benedicta jactetur. 5. He fixes the Day of the Feast of Easter approaching; he says that Divine Service is perform'd after the same manner in all the Feasts, that some Chapters only are added, which agree either to the Mysteries, or to the Saint whose Feast it is: He sends Reliques to him to whom he writes. Here this Letter should end, for he declares that he had answer'd all the Demands of this Bishop, and makes him a Complement wherewith it was usual to conclude a Letter: Yet there are in it two other Articles, which have no relation to the preceding, nor any connexion with the remainder of the Letter. The first condemns the Priests who name not the three Persons in administring Baptism; the second is a∣bout the Primacy of the Church of Rome. It affirms, that there is no doubt but the Roman Church is the Foundation, Form and Principle of all the Churches, because tho all the Apostles were chosen after the same manner, yet St. Peter had the Pre-eminence above the other; which made him be call'd Cephas, because he is the Head and Prince of the other Apostles; that therefore the Church of Rome has the Primacy among all the Churches, and that 'tis necessary, that the Causes which con∣cern the Persons of Bishops, or the important Affairs of the Church, should be communicated to him, and that the Appeals of these Causes should be reserv'd to him. 'Tis very probable that these two Articles are added.

In the third Letter Vigilius makes Answer to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, about King Theodebert's Consulting him concerning the Penance which should be impos'd upon one who had married his Bro∣ther's Wife. Vigilius had already written to the King, that this Crime could not be expiated but by a great Penance: But because 'tis convenient that the Penance should be regulated by the Bishops upon the place, since none but they can know the condition of the Penitent, he commits this care to Caesarius, with whom he leaves full power to regulate the Time and Order of this Penance: But he admonishes him to require, that he commit no more such things for the future, and to hinder him and her, who were thus married, from dwelling together.

The fourth Letter is address'd to Justinian; There he praises the Piety and Faith of this Empe∣ror, who had written to him, that he would inviolably adhere to the Faith establish'd in the four Ge∣neral Councils, and in the Letters of St. Celestin and St. Leo. He testifies to him that he is of the same Judgment, and that he approves what his Predecessors Hormisdas, John and Agapetus had done against the Hereticks, and that he condemns the Persons whom they had condemn'd. He recom∣mends it to this Prince, that he would maintain the Priviledges of the See of Rome, which could not be attack'd without violating, as one may say, the Faith.

In the following Letter he congratulates Mennas for being of the same Judgment: This is dated Sept. 17th, 540.

The sixth, seventh and eighth Letters are address'd to Auxanius Bishop of Arles. In the first he grants him the Pallium: In the second he makes him his Vicar in the Kingdom of Childebert, and annexes two Prerogatives to this Title. The first is to examine and judge the Causes of the Bi∣shops of this Kingdom, provided notwithstanding, that if any Causes of Faith or of difficult Mat∣ters

happens they shall be reserv'd to the Decision of the Holy See. The second is, that no Bishop shall go out of his Country, without taking Literae Formatae from him. He exhorts him after∣wards * 1.44 to pray for Justinian, and to preserve the Peace and good Understanding between King Childeber: and the Emperor.

In the third Letter to Auxanius, Vigilius commissions him to Judge the Affair of Pretextatus. The first of these Letters is dated Octob. 18th, 543, and the other two May 22th, 545. The same day he wrote a fourth to the Bishops of the Kingdom of Childebert, and to those who were accu∣stomed to receive their Consecration from the Bishop of Arles, wherein he gives them to under∣stand that he had made Auxanius his Vicar, and sets forth the Rights which he had granted him.

After the death of Auxanius, he gave the same Title and the same Priviledges to his Successor Aurelianus, as appears by the Letters ten and eleven, written in 546.

The other Letters and Treatises of Vigilius having a relation to the History of the fifth Council, of which they make a part, we shall reserve them to be spoken of upon that Head.

CAESARIUS Bishop of Arles.

CAesarius born at Chalons upon the River Sone, a Monk and Abbot of Lerina, and afterwards Bi∣shop of Arles, was one of the most famous Bishops of France in his time. He was honour'd with divers Letters from the Popes, who made him their Vicar. He assisted at many Councils of France, in which he caused very excellent and useful Canons to be made. He govern'd the See of Arles from the Year 501, to the Year 543. He is mention'd in Gennadius's Book of Ecclesiastical Writers; but 'tis certain that this place was added: For besides that, it is not found in some Editions, and ma∣ny Manuscripts of Gennadius, 'tis evident that Caesarius was not yet Bishop of Arles, when Gennadius wrote this Book: Yet this Chapter being written by an ancient Author, we may give credit to what he says in it, that Caesarius composed some Books very useful for Monks. Sigibert of Gemblours calls them Homilies proper for the Monastical Life. We have many Homilies which go under his Name, which are publish'd in the Bibliotheque of the Fathers, in the Collection of M. Baluzius, and among the Sermons of St. Austin. Some of them perhaps are none of his, and 'tis certain that several pla∣ces are added in them: But these Homilies are not Discourses to Monks, but Sermons to the People. He compos'd a very great number of them, not only to serve for Preaching in his own Church, which he did very often Morning and Evening; but also to send them to his Brethren of France, Italy and Spain, that they might use them for the Instruction of their People: From hence it is, that a great number of them are restor'd to him in the last Edition of St. Austin's Sermons. He often-times transcribed the Sermons of others, and chiefly those of St. Austin.

He founded a Monastery of Nuns at Arles, whereof his Sister Caesaria was Abbess: He drew up a Rule for them which is in the Collection of Benedict of Aniane, where is found also a Discourse exhorting them to Chastity; a Letter which he wrote to the Abbess, about the manner of govern∣ing her Nuns, and the Testament of this Bishop. His Life was written by his Disciple Cyprianus, by the Priest Messianus, and by the Deacon Stephen. These Lives are extant in the first Benedictine Age; but I question whether they be altogether genuine, and such as they were made by their first Authors. The Author who plac'd his Name in Gennadius, attributes to him a Collection of Passages out of the Holy Scripture and the Fathers about Grace, which is approv'd by Pope Felix; which is to be understood of the Canons of the second Council of Orange, at which Caesarius assist∣ed.

PONTIANUS.

THis Bishop wrote a Letter to Justinian, wherein he praises his Zeal and Piety, and remonstrates to him, that he thought he could not condemn Theodorus, the Writings of Theodoret and the Letter of Ibas, because he had not seen their Writings, and tho he should see them, and find in * 1.45 them things worthy of Condemnation, yet he could not condemn the Authors that died in the Communion of the Church: That he was afraid lest under the pretence of condemning these Authors, they should revive the Heresie of Eutyches. Lastly, he informs him that he could not make

war with the dead, who are judg'd by a Judge, from whose Judgment there lies no Appeal; and prays him not to persecute and put to death those who are alive, to force them to condemn some that * 1.46 are dead. This Letter is in the Councils Tome 5. p. 324.

LEO Archbishop of Sens.

THe Bishops have always been jealous of their Jurisdiction, and vigorously oppos'd the Dismem∣brings which the Princes would make of the Parts of their Diocese: This Archbishop of Sens may serve for an example of this. King Childebert would establish a Bishop in the City of Melo∣dunum which was in his Kingdom, tho it belong'd to the Diocese of Sens. Leo wrote to him a Ci∣vil Letter in defence of his Rights, and to hinder the Erection of this Bishoprick: He represents to him, that this could not be done without the consent of King Theodebert, that it was contrary to the Ecclesiastical Canons; that he ought not to suffer the Peace which was among the Bishops to be di∣sturbed by his Order, and that some of the People should be withdrawn from under the Jurisdiction of their Bishop, that he could not alledge as a Pretence for erecting this new Bishoprick of Melodu∣num, that the Bishop of Sens could not make his Visitation there, because the ways were stopp'd up; since there was nothing to hinder the Bishop of Sens to go thither, or send his Deputy. Lastly, he declares, that whosoever shall Ordain a Bishop at Melodunum without his Consent, unless it were or∣der'd by the Pope, or in a Synod, shall be excluded from his Communion, as well as he who shall be Ordain'd. This Letter is written under the Reign of Theodebert, which begun in 535 and end∣ed in 548.

TROJANUS Bishop of Santones.

THis Bishop wrote a Letter to Evemerus, or Eumerius Bishop of Nantes, who had consulted him, Whether he ought to Baptize a Person who did not remember that he was baptiz'd: He an∣swers * 1.47 him, That he ought to baptize all those who did not remember that they were baptiz'd, or had no proof that they had been baptiz'd.

NICETIUS Bishop of Treves.

FAther Luc Dachery has given us in the third Tome of his Spicilegium two small Tracts of Piety written by this Bishop: The one is concerning the Watchings of the Servants of God, and the * 1.48 other concerning the Usefulness of singing Psalms. There are also two Letters of this Bishop's; one to Justinian, wherein he exhorts him to renounce Heresie; and another to Chlosdoinda Queen of the Lombards, exhorting her to labour after the Conversion of her Husband. Tome fifth of the Coun∣cils, p. 381.

AURELIANUS.

AUrelianus Bishop of Arles, and Successor to Caesarius, whom Vigilius made his Vicar in Gaul, made two Rules; one for the Monks, and another for the Nuns. They are both related in the * 1.49 Code of the Rules of Benedict Abbot of Ancona. This Bishop assisted at the Council of Lyons held in the Year 549.

TERRADIUS. * 1.50

TErradius or Terridius, a Kinsman of Caesarius Bishop of Arles, passes for the Author of a Rule made for Monks and Nuns.

ARATOR.

ARator born in Liguria, was Intendant of the Finances to King Athalaricus, and afterwards Sub-deacon of the Church of Rome, he turn'd into Verse the History of the Acts of the Apostles, under * 1.51 the Pontificat of Pope Vigilius. Altho this Work was much esteem'd in his own time, yet it has not the like Approbation at present, having nothing in it that's sublime or agreeable. The same Author wrote a Letter in Elegiack Verse to Count Parthenius, which was publish'd by Father Sirmondus at the end of Ennodius.

JUSTINIANUS and JUSTUS Bishops of Spain,

ISidore of Sevil observes it as a thing extraordinary, that there were in Spain, under the Reign of Theodius, i. e. toward the Year 535, four Brethren born of the same Mother, all four Bishops, * 1.52 and all four Writers.

The first is Justinian Bishop of Valentia, who wrote a Treatise containing divers Answers to the Questions of Rusticus; The first concerning the Holy Spirit; the second against the followers of Bonosus, who believ'd that Jesus Christ was an Adoptive Son, and not the Natural Son of God; the third about the Baptism of Jesus Christ, to show that it is not lawful to reiterate it; the fourth, about the Distinction between John's Baptism, and that of Jesus Christ; the fifth to prove that the Son is in∣visible as the Father.

The second was Justus Bishop of Urgellum, who publish'd a little Commentary upon the Canticles, wherein he explains in a few words, and very clearly, the Allegorical sense of this Book of Holy Scripture.

The two other Brethren were call'd Hebrides and Elpides; but it is not known where they were Bishops, and what is the subject of their Writings. We have not now the Work of Justinian, but only that of Justus upon the Canticles. St. Isidore has given a sound Judgment of it: In it he ex∣pounds very succinctly and clearly the Canticles, by applying it to Jesus Christ and his Church. There are two Letters of the same Bishop in the fifth Tome of the Spicilegium of Luc Dachery, the first whereof is supposititious.

APRIGIUS.

APrigius Bishop of Beia in Portugal, an Eloquent and Learned Man, says Isidore of Sevil, has ex∣plain'd the Revelation of St. John: He has given a spiritual sense of it, and in a noble style; he * 1.53 seems also to have succeeded betterin it, then the greatest part of the Ancients. He did also write some other Books which are not come to our Knowledge. He flourish'd in the time of King Theodius, i. e. about the Year 540. At present there remains nothing of this Author.

ARETAS. * 1.54

THis Aretas, who wrote a Commentary upon the Revelations, taken out of that of Andrew of Caesarea, is plac'd in the sixth Age of the Church, and he is also thought to be Bishop of Caesarea; but there is no proof, neither of the one nor the other. This Commentary may be seen in the Bibli∣otheques of the Fathers.

ZACHARIAS Bishop of Mitylena.

ZAcharias Scholasticus was made Bishop of Mitylena, in the time of Mennas Patriarch of Constan∣tinople, and was present at the fifth Council. He wrote two Treatises about Matters rather * 1.55 Philosophical then Theological: The first is a little Tract against the Opinion of the Manichees con∣cerning the two Principles. The second is a Dialogue of the Creation of the World, wherein he refutes the Philosophers who believ'd it Eternal. These two Treatises are in the Bibliotheques of the Fathers.

CYRILLUS of Scythopolis.

CYrillus Monk of Scythopolis wrote the Life of the Abbot Euthymus: 'Tis in Latin in Surius at the 20th of January, and in Greek and Latin in the second Tome of the Monuments of the Greek * 1.56 Church, publish'd by Mr. Cotelerius; but it is not the same as it was written by Cyril, but as it was amended, or rather corrupted by Metaphrastes. This Life is well enough written, and contains ma∣ny Historical Circumstances very remarkable.

FACUNDUS.

FAcundus Bishop of Hermiana, a City of the Province of Byracena in Afric, being at Constantino∣ple at the time when Justinian would extort from the Bishops the Condemnation of the three * 1.57 Chapters, wrote a Book in Defence of them before Vigilius arriv'd at Constantinople. When this Pope was come, Facundus assisted at the Conference which was held upon this Subject; and being afterwards oblig'd to give his Opinion in Writing, he made Extracts out of his own Book in great haste, the Emperor not allowing him but seven days to give his Opinion, tho there happen'd two of them to be Festivals. This Facundus himself informs us, in the Preface of his twelve Books written in Defence of the three Chapters.

In the first he handles many Questions concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the first place he commends the Confession of Faith which Justinian had publish'd in the Year 533, and ap∣proves also of this Expression, One of the Trinity was crucified; after this he remarks, that the three Chapters were invented by the Eutychians to weaken the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon; That the Origenians, to revenge themselves on those who had Condemn'd them, were joyn'd with the Eutychians, and not daring openly to attack the Council of Chalcedon, they had consulted to pro∣cure the Condemnation of the Letter of Ibas, which was approv'd in this Council, that they might indirectly Condemn the Bishops that were present at it; That, in short, it was not necessary, for re∣jecting the Error of the Nestorians, to Condemn the three Chapters, but it was sufficient to say, that One of the Trinity suffer'd, and that the Virgin was the Mother of God: That there are some Catho∣licks, who would not have it said, That one of the Trinity, but, One of the Persons of the Tri∣nity suffer'd: That notwithstanding both the one and the other of these Propositions is capable of a good sense, but the last does not formally enough exclude the Error of the Nestorians. Here he re∣marks,

en passant, that when 'tis said in Scripture, that Baptism was administred by the Apostles in the Name of Jesus Christ, this ought to be understood only by way of Opposition to the Baptism of the Jews, and not so as to exclude the Invocation of the other Persons. Afterward he shows that we ought to say, that the Virgin is truly and properly the Mother of God, and that it may also be said, that God is the Father of a crucified Man, without inferring from thence, that the Divinity was born of a Virgin, or that it was crucified. He proves also against the Eutychians, that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, and not only One Nature compounded as they affirm. He explains the Passages of Julius and St. Cyril, which they make use of to give Authority to their Sentiment, by proving that these two Bishops acknowledg'd two Natures in Jesus Christ. He pushes these things yet further, by maintaining that those who admit but one compounded Nature, favour'd the Senti∣ment of Nestorius, because they cannot say that this Nature was of the same Substance with that of the Eternal Father, which is most Simple, from whence it follows, that the Person of Jesus Christ is not of the same Substance with the Father. In fine, he observes, that the difference between the Union of the Soul and Body, and that of the Divine and Human Nature in Jesus Christ, consists in this, That the Soul and Body are united into one and the same Nature, whereas the Divine, and Human Nature are united into One Person only.

Facundus having discover'd the Purity of his Faith in the first Book, undertakes in the second the Defence of the three Chapters. That he may do this the more freely, he supposes that the Writing against the three Chapters, which goes under the Name of Justinian, is none of his, but that it was compos'd by the Enemies of the Council of Chalcedon. He cries out, that it were need∣less to discuss the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, who died a long while ago in the Communi∣on of the Church; that his Memory is struck at for no other reason, but because he was commend∣ed in the Letter of Ibas, approv'd in the Council of Chalcedon; but then he was also commended and approv'd, while he was alive, by the Fathers of the Church, as by John Chrysostom, by St. Gre∣gory Nazianzen, by John of Antioch, by Domnus, and even by a Synod of Oriental Bishops held at Antioch; That the Writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas would not be condemn'd, but only to lessen the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon; and that the chief reason why the Letter of I∣bas is attack'd, is, because it clearly distinguishes the two Natures in the Person of Jesus Christ: That the reason which they make use of for condemning it, Because St. Cyril is abus'd in it, is a vain pretence, since they say nothing of Gennadius of Constantinople, and Isidore, who have spoken much worse of this Father: That, in short, they cannot condemn this Letter of Ibas, because the Council of Chalcedon, having examin'd it, did not think it convenient to condemn it; and so much the ra∣ther, since St. Leo, and the Synodical Assemblies of the Eastern Churches, had declar'd that nothing must be added to the Decisions of this Council: That it was needless to wait for the Judgment of Vigilius, since he could not depart from the Sentiments of his Predecessor, having receiv'd his Sove∣raign Power for Edification, and not for Destruction, and he had no Power against the Truth, but only for the Truth.

In the third Book he defends particularly Theodorus of Mopsuesta. In the first place he remarks, That he cannot be condemned without accusing the Council of Chalcedon, or St. Leo, of Error or Negligence. After this he maintains, That the Doctrine of this Bishop was very Orthodox, and that he condemn'd the Error of Paulus of Samosata and Nestorius; and he proves from his Writings that he rejected these Errors. He asserts that the Creed which is attributed to him, and was condemn'd in the Council of Ephesus, is none of his. He gives a good Sense to the Passages which are alledg'd to prove that he was in an Error; he defends him also against that Accusation, That he had subverted the Prophecies of Jesus Christ.

In the fourth Book he maintains, That we ought not to follow the Judgment of St. Cyril about the Condemnation of Theodorus, since what he says against St. Chrysostom and Diodorus of Tarsus is not approv'd. He shows that the Eastern Patriarchs acknowledg'd at first sight, that the Condem∣nation of the three Chapters was invented only to lessen the Council of Chalcedon. He complains, That notwithstanding they had sign'd it, and cowardly surrendred themselves to the Will of the Prince; he rem••rks, that Vigilius would not consent to it, and that the greater part of the Western Churches oppos'd it.

The fifth Book is about the Letter of Ibas: He pretends to prove, That the Council of Chalcedon approv'd it, that Ibas never deny'd his writing of it: He affirms as to Theodoret, That he had a Seat in the Council, before the Condemnation of Dioscorus and Eutyches: He shows that St. Leo approv'd all that was done in the Council, except what concern'd the Pretension of the Patriarch of Constan∣tinople: From whence he concludes, That after so solemn an Approbation by the Council and the Pope, 'tis not lawful to condemn this Letter.

He goes further in the sixth and seventh Book, wherein he undertakes to justifie the Judgment of the Council, by showing that the Letter of Ibas contains no Heresy, and that he acknowledg'd two Natures and one Person in Jesus Christ. He confesses, that in it he condemn'd St. Cyril and excus'd Nestorius: But he maintains, That this was by a mistake of the matter of Fact, that the Council did not think it their duty to condemn him for this as an Heretick: That it cannot be charg'd upon him as a Crime, that he prais'd Theodorus of Mopsuesta, since St. Chrysostom and St. Gregory Nazian∣zen had also prais'd him.

In the eighth Book he defends Theodorus, first, by showing that the Holy Fathers and the Ea∣stern Bishops used Expressions like to those of Theodorus; that 'tis false that Proclus pr••scribed him; that the Eastern Bishops wrote to Theodosius and St. Cyril, that he must not be condemn'd; that Theodo∣sius approv'd their Judgment; that Domnus Bishop of Antioch prais'd him, and declar'd that we must not blacken the memory of those Persons who died in the Communion of the Church; that the Fa∣thers and Bishops of his Time praised and esteem'd him, that St. Cyril is the only Father who con∣demn'd him, but his Judgment ought not to be prefer'd before all the others.

In the ninth Book he undertakes to justifie Theodorus by his Writings, and to prove that be believ'd that Jesus Christ was God, and that he acknowledg'd in him two Natures united in One Person only: He explains some Expressions of this Author, which may appear harsh: He lays it down for a Rule, that we must interpret obscure and ambiguous Places by those that are clear and evi∣dent.

In the tenth Book he shows, That tho some places were to be blam'd in the Writings of Theodo∣rus, yet the Council had done well not to condemn him, either because these places had not come to their knowledge, or because they were capable of a good sense, or lastly, because it may be be∣liev'd that they were added by his Enemies: That tho it were evident that he was in an Error, yet he ought not to be condemn'd as an Heretick, since he was not obstinate in it, and had shown him∣self to be of a tractable spirit, by retracting what he had affirm'd: That tho he had been more cul∣pable, yet Ibas might praise him for what he had written well: That tho he had been accus'd Ju∣dicially in the Council, yet he could not be condemn'd since he died in the Peace and Communion of the Church: That Athanasius was not condemn'd for defending Dionysius of Alexandria; that it is yet more easie to defend Theodorus of Mopsuesta; That the Council had as much right to excuse Theodorus, as St. Basil had to explain the passages of Gregory Thaumaturgus, or St. Hilary to inter∣pret the Expressions of the Councils of Antioch and Sirmium. Lastly, he reprehends four things in the Anathema pronounc'd against Theodorus of Mopsuesta, against his Doctrine and those of his O∣pinion. 1. That a Person is anathematiz'd who died in the Communion of the Church. 2. That in anathematizing him, all those who approv'd him are anathematiz'd. 3. That all his Dogmes in general are condemned. 4. That they do not only condemn those who are of his Opinion, but those who have been of it.

In the eleventh Book he shows, That the ancient Fathers us'd many Expressions altogether like those of Theodorus of Mopsuesta: He produces their passages, and argues very much upon them, He observes, that the Expressions of the Fathers ought to be taken in a good sense, and what being less exact escap'd them ought to be pardon'd. He shows that many of these Expressions are in St. Cyril, which are blam'd in Theodorus.

In the last Book he shows at first, That there is a great deal of difference between those Hereticks that are separated from the Church, and even those that lye conceal'd and are obstinate, and those Catholicks who are in an Error thro Ignorance, or want of understanding things perfectly well, and who continue in an entire submission to the Church. From whence he concludes, That tho Theodorus had been in an Error, yet he could not be condemn'd as a Heretick, since he was not only never se∣parated from the Church, but also had signified very much his teachable temper and submission to it. He remonstrates, That it belongs to Princes to submit in Matters of Faith, and that they ought not to ascribe to themselves what pertains to the Bishops: He proves this by the Examples of the Empe∣rors Marcianus and Leo, to whom he opposes the Example of the Emperor Zeno. He concludes with an Exhortation to the Emperor to renounce the Error wherein he was engag••d, and proposes to him the Example of the Great Theodosius.

There is a famous passage in the ninth Book about the Eucharist, which seems not to favour the Real Presence: For to excuse Theodorus, who had call'd Jesus Christ an Adopted Son, he maintains, that this Name may be given him, because he had receiv'd the Sacrament or Sign of Adoption, which may be call'd the Adoption it self; as 'tis said, That the Faithful in receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, receive his Body and his Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body, and the Cup his Blood, but because they contain in them the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ * 1.58.

I shall not stay to Answer this, nor to examine the true sense of this passage, nor to show that it may agree very well with the Real Presence, because this has been already done by able Writers of Controversie, and particularly by the Author of the Perpetuity, who has forgot nothing that could be said upon this Subject. Every one may consult him.

Facundus having so stoutly defended the three Chapters, did not change his Judgment like Vigili∣us, on the contrary, he was one of those who continued stedfast unto the end, and chose rather to suffer Banishment, then sign the Condemnation of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, the Writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas. But that which was most to be blam'd in their Conduct, was▪ That they did not only disallow this Subscription, but they also separated from the Communion of those who had subscribed.

When the passages of St. Austin were objected to them, who had very often repeated, That we must suffer the Wicked to be in the Church, and not separate from it upon their account; Facundus * 1.59 undertakes ••o answer this in a ••riting address'd to Mocianus or Mucianus, who was one of those that had a great value for these passages, and who compar'd to the Donatists, those Christians, who separated from the Communion of the Church for the Affair of the three Chapters. Facundus as∣serts in this Writing, That there is a great deal of difference between them and the Donatists: That there was no Controversie in the time of the Donatists but concerning Separation and Schism, but now the Question is concerning Faith; That the Example of the Condemnation of Acacius, clearly justified their Separation from Communion with those who favour'd Hereticks; That those who sign the Condemnation of the three Chapters, joyn with Hereticks, condemn the Council of Chalcedon, Anathematize the Holy-Fathers of the Church, and so separate themselves from its Communion; That it is not the Church of Afric which makes the Separation, but it only refuses to communicate with such Persons as were themselves separate from the Communion of the Church. Afterwards he relates what pass'd upon the Condemnation of the three Chapters: He blames the Constitution which Vigilius had made in favour of the three Chapters: And lastly, he maintains that the Bishops of Afric in separating from those who had sign'd the three Chapters, imitated the Conduct which Hilary and St. Jerom•• observ'd towards the Arians.

He handles also the same Question in a Letter publish'd by Father D'Achery in the third Tome of his Spicilegium: He affirms that those who condemn the three Chapters, are either Hereticks, or the the Successors of Hereticks; Hereticks, if they have unjustly condemn'd them; the Successors of Hereticks, if they did it justly, since their Fathers and Predecessors did not condemn them; and that by condemning the Letter of Ibas, they approve the Doctrine of the Acephali, and reject that of the two Natures in Jesus Christ: From these Principles he concludes that they are Hereticks. He adds, That they usurp a Judgment over the Dead which pertains to God only: He accuses them of changing their Sentiment every moment, by suffering themselves to be corrupted by Presents, or the Hopes of Preferment. Afterwards he presses those who sign the Condemnation of the three Chap∣ters, to show the Acts of the Council where Theodorus was condemn'd, as these are shown by which it appears that he was approv'd. He demands of them, Whether the Council of Chalcedon is Or∣thodox or no: If they say that it is, he affirms that they are Hereticks, because they condemn that which it approves: If they say that it is not, by this they presently declare themselves to be Here∣ticks. He maintains, That those who are joyn'd to these who condemn the three Chapters are as faulty as they, and that they separate from the Church by Communicating with Hereticks; that if they do not approve them in words, yet they approve them in Deeds; That 'tis true, Nothing is to be prefer'd before Peace, but then, the Authors of the Condemnation of the three Chapters, are they who have broken the Peace, and that nothing ••inders the Re-establishment of it but their adhering to this Condemnation.

This is what remains of the Works of Facundus. He writes with great eagerness, he turns things with much Art and Eloquence: He does often make Judicious Remarks, and use solid Arguments; but his Zeal and Eagerness transports him some times too far, and carries him to make false Re∣flexions, and bad Inferences. He had read very well the Treatises of the Fathers about the Incar∣nation, and knew very well the History of the Disputes which the Explication of this Mystery had rais'd in the Church. Baronius had seen the Books of this Author, in a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, and took many things out of them. Since that F. Sirmondus publish'd them in the Year 1629, according to a Copy taken from that Manuscript. They have been printed also since, toge∣ther with Optatus in 1676.

VICTOR of Capua.

VIctor Bishop of Capua liv'd about the middle of the sixth Age. He compos'd a Paschal Cycle, wherein he asserts that Victorius was mistaken, in setting down the Feast of Easter for the Year 455, to be on the seventeenth day of April, which should have been the five and twentieth day of the same Month in that Year. Having light upon a Harmony of the Evangelists which he believ'd to be Tatianus's, he publish'd it, and took the pains to add to it some Marks for discovering how many of the Evangelists relate the same thing. This is observ'd in a Preface which he prefix'd to this Work.

RUSTICUS Deacon of the Church of * 1.60 ROME.

THis Rusticus is famous in the History of the three Chapters, which he boldly defends against the Judgment of Pope Vigi•…•…, by whom he was Depos'd. He has left us a Treatise in the Form of a Dialogue, written against the Acephali, wherein he proves that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, and that this Doctrine is far enough from the Error of Nestoria••••. He says, en passant, that the Son does not proceed from the Holy Spirit, but 'tis not certainly known, Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. This Treatise is written with much exactness and clear∣ness: In it he mentions a Discourse which he had written against the Acephali and the Nestorians, and promises a Treatise in Defence of the three Chapters; but these Works are now lost. That of which we have now spoken, was printed in divers Collections of Works against the Hereticks, and in the Bibliotheques of the Fathers. Some have thought that this is only a Translation, but there is no probability of that, for Rusticus himself was a Latin, and the Work it self discovers sufficiently that it is an Original, and not a Translation.

PRIMASIUS.

PRimasius Bishop of A••ru••ettum, a City in the Province of Byracena, was at Constantinople, at the time when the fifth Council was held. C•…•…odorus assures us, That he wrote a Commenta∣ry * 1.61 upon the Re••••lations, divided into five Books. This Work was printed at Basil in 1544, and at Lyons in 1543, together with a Commentary upon all the Epistles of St. Paul. These Works are Collections of Extracts out of the Fathers, and Commentators. In the Commentary upon St. Paul, he copies oftentimes that which goes under the Name of St. Jerom.

St. Isidore of Sevil says nothing of these Comme•…•… but he informs us that Primasius wrote three Books of Heresies address'd to Fortunatus, wherein he explains what St. Austin had left im∣perfect in his Book of Heresies, showing in the first Book what it is that makes a Heretick. In the second and third, by what Hereticks may be ••nown. Some Learned Men think that the Book which F. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 has publish'd under the Name of Predesti•…•…, because it had no Title in his Manuscript, i•• the Work of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. This Opinion is not only founded upon a bare Conjecture, but upon the Authority of a Manuscript of this Treatise, found in Germany by F. Mabillon, which bears the Name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. This seems to be a concluding Argument; but yet if it be well con∣sider'd what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 says of the Book of Pr•…•…, and withal we attend to the Doctrine of the Author, •…•…led 〈◊〉〈◊〉, it will appear that this cannot be: For the Book written by Prima∣sius, was not, according to Isidore, a Catalogue of Heresies, but it was a Treatise, wherein he un∣dertook to resolve the Question which St. Austin proposed to himself, and which he design'd to han∣dle in the second Part of his Book of Heresies, viz. Wherein consists Heresie, and how it may be known when a Person is a Heretick. Now there is not a word said of this Question in the Trea∣tise publish'd by Father Sirmondus under the Name of Predestinatus. 'Tis divided into three Parts, but the first is a Catalogue of Heresies; the second is a Treatise compos'd under the Name of St. Austin by a pretended Predestinarian; the third is a Confutation of this Treatise: This is wholly different from the Subject of that whereof Isidorus speaks.

Moreover, Primasius was a faithful Disciple of the Doctrine of St. Austin, as appears by his Commentaries; but this Author on the contrary is one of his greatest Enemies; and in some places he afferts Doctrines which are altogether Pelagian. 'Tis very probable therefore, that some half learned Man knowing that Primasius had written a Treatise of Heresies, divided into three Parts, and finding 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Anonymous Author upon the same Subject, which was also divided into three Parts, made no scruple to put the Name of this Bishop to it.

JUNILIUS. * 1.62

JUnilius a Bishop of Afric, address'd to him of whom we spoke last, a Treatise of the Parts of the Divine Law, which is a kind of Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scripture. Cassiodo∣rus mentions it. The Author says that he had this Work from one Persanus, named Paul, who had studied at Nisibis, where there was a Publick School for teaching the Holy Scripture. The Reflexi∣ons of this Author are very Judicious and Methodical. Here follows an Abridgment of it: The Knowledge of the Scripture consists of two Parts; The first concerns the Surface or the Diction of the Scripture; the second concerns the things themselves which the Scripture teaches us. The first Part contains five things; the Nature of the Book, its Authority, its Author, the Manner wherein it is written, and the Order wherein it ought to be plac'd. There are in it five kinds of Books; History, which is the Relation of things past; of which kind the Author reckons but seventeen Ca∣nonical Books in the Old and New Tastament, and rejects as Apocryphal, not only the Books of Maccabees and that of Judith, but also the two Books of Chronicles, the Book of Job, the two Books of Esdras, and the Book of Esther. Prophecy is the second kind of Books in the Holy Scripture; which he defines, A Declaration of things past, present, or future. Of this kind he finds seventeen Books in both the Testaments, and observes that the Orientalists reject the Apocalypse. The third manner of writing is the Proverbial Manner, which he defines, A figurative way of speaking, which intends something else to be understood then what it signifies, and contains Advices for the present time. The Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Syrach, i. e. Ecclesiasticus, are of this kind; to these may be added the Book of Wisdom and the Canticles: Allegory pertains to this kind, which is taken either from a Metaphor, or a Comparison, or a Parable, or from a Proverbial way of Speaking. Lastly, the last Manner is that of mere Instruction, the Epistles of St. Paul are of this kind.

As to the Authority of Scripture, he observes, That there are Books of a perfect Authority, and others of a less perfects, and others lastly which are of none at all.

The Authors of these Books are known, either by their Titles, or by the beginning of their Works. Moses is the Author of the Pentateuque, Joshua of the Book which goes under his Name, Samuel of the first Book of the Kings. There are Books in it whose Authors are altogether unknown, as the Book of Judges, of Ruth, and the last Book of Kings.

Among these Books, there are some written in Verse, as the Psalms, the Book of Job, and some places of the Prophets; and others in Prose.

The Order of the Books of Scripture is not different from ours.

This is what concerns the External Surface of the Scripture: As to the Substance of the things which it teaches, the Author observes that there are in it some Names that agree to the Essence, and others to the Persons of the Trinity; and among these there are some which precisely denote them, and others only consequentially, because they signifie the Operations which are attributed to them: He gives Examples of them, and shows what is common to the three Persons, and what is particular to each. Lastly he speaks of the Attributes which agree to God.

In the second Book he makes a particular Ennumeration of what the Scripture teaches concern∣ing the Creatures, and explains after what manner God governs them: From thence he passes to what concerns the World to come. He treats of the Figures of the Law, and the fulfilling of Pro∣phecies concerning Jesus Christ. Lastly, he enquires, How it may be prov'd, that the Books of our Religion are Divinely inspir'd: And he answers, That it may be known by the Truth of them it self, by the Order of Things, by the admirable Agreement of Precepts, by the Simplicity and Pu∣rity wherewith they are written: That to these Characters we must add the Qualities of those that wrote them, and who preach'd the Doctrine which they contain, because it was not possible, with∣out the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that Men should write of Divine things, that simple Men should write of things so Sublime, that Men so ignorant and plain should discover Truths so great and Subtil; That the success of their Preaching was also a proof of the Truth of their Doctrine: For how was it possible, that Persons so despicable should Convert the whole World, Reform the Do∣ctrines of the Philosophers, and Confound their Adversaries, without the Assistance of a visible Protection from God. Lastly, That the Accomplishment of Prophecies, and the Miracles which produc'd a Belief of our Religion, were convincing Proofs of its Truth; and that if at present no Miracles are wrought, it is because there is no need of them, because the Establishment of this Reli∣gion is a Miracle more then sufficient to prove it.

This is what is most useful in this Treatise, which is to be found in the Bibliotheques of the Fa∣thers.

LIBERATUS. * 1.63

LIberatus a Deacon of the Church of Carthage, and a Defender of the three Chapters, is the Author of an Historical Memorial of the Contests that arose about the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. He begins with the Ordination of Nestorius, and ends at the fifth Council, i. e. in 553. This Memorial therefore was not written by Liberatus, till after the Year 560. It contains some very useful particulars of this History, which are no where else to be found, and Extracts of the Authentick Acts to justifie what he affirms. This Work was publish'd by F. Garner in 1675. It is also in the fifth Tome of the last Collection of the Councils.

VICTOR of Tunona.

VIctor Bishop of Tunona in Afric, was also one of the zealous Defenders of the three Chapters; for which reason he was banish'd into Egypt, and afterwards shut up in a Monastery at Constan∣tinople. * 1.64 Isidore of Sevil informs us, That he made a Chronicon from the beginning of the World to the first Year of the Empire of Justin the younger, wherein he plac'd in Order the Consuls, the most memorable Events of War, and the Holy Fathers of the Church. We have nothing now remaining but one part of this Chronicon, which begins where that of St. Prosper ends, i. e. in the Year 444, and ends at the Year 565. In it he particularly describes what concerns the History of Eutyches, and the Affair of the three Chapters. Canisius was the first that caus'd it to be printed at Ingolstadt in the Year 1600, and since that Scaliger has inserted it into his Treasure of Time.

PAULUS SILENTIARIUS.

PAulus Cyrus Florus, Chief of the Silentiarii of the Palace, flourish'd towards the middle of the sixth Age. He made a long Poem containing a Description of the Temple of Sancta Sophia * 1.65 which is printed at the end of the History of Cinnamus. [He wrote also many other excellent Poems, says Dr. Cave out of Agathias De Rebus Justiniani, Hist. Lit. p. 416.]

PELAGIUS the First.

PElagius, after he had been a long time at Constantinople, return'd into Italy with Pope Vigilius, and was Ordain'd, after the death of this Pope, by two Bishops, in the presence of a Priest of * 1.66 the Church of Ostia. This extraordinary Ordination, and the suspicion that went about of him, that he had been the cause of the death of his Predecessor, induc'd many to separate from his Com∣munion, and brought upon him the hatred of the People. To purge himself he mounted into a Chair, after a solemn Procession from the Church of St. Pancratius to that of St. Peter, and swore upon the Holy Evangelists and the Cross, That he was no wise guilty of that whereof he was ac∣cus'd; the People were satisfy'd with this Oath, and with the Prohibition he made against giving Mo∣ney for Ordinations.

Altho there was nothing remarkable that happen'd in the Church during the Pontificat of this Pope, which lasted almost five years, yet he has written many Letters.

The first, address'd to Vigilius, is a supposititious Piece, made up of Passages patched together, which are taken out of St. Leo, Itachius, the date whereof is false.

The second is address'd to Count Narses; He prays him to assist Peter the Priest, and the Deacon Projectus, whom he had sent to Prosecute two Bishops of Italy, who disturb'd the Order of the Churches, and would appropriate to themselves all the Ecclesiastical Revenues.

In the third he exhorts the same Count to employ the Authority which his Office gave him, for correcting and punishing the Bishops of Istria, Liguria, and the Country of Venice, who had sepa∣rated * 1.67 from the other Churches, for the Affair of the three Chapters. He remarks, That if they had any Complaints to make against the Decision of the Council of Constantinople, they should send De∣puties to the Holy See, and not rend in pieces the Body of Christ by their Separation.

In the fourth Letter he inveighs vehemently against the same Bishops for their boldness in excom∣municating Narses. He exhorts him to employ his Authority for punishing Euphrasius, who was guilty of Murder, and an Incestuous Adultery. He counsels him to drive the Obstinate out of the Province, and to send the Authors of this Schism to the Emperor, and chiefly him who was in the See of Aquileia, who being, says he, a Schismatick, ought to have neither the Name nor Dignity of a Bishop.

He recommends it also to Narses, by another Letter, to send the Bishops of Aquileia and Milan to the Emperor with a strong Guard, because the first was incapable of being Bishop by his irregular Ordination, and the second ought to be punish'd for Ordaining after such a manner.

The sixth Letter of Pelagius is address'd to the Bishops of Tuscany, who would also separate from the other Churches for the Affair of the three Chapters: He remonstrates to them what a Crime it is to break the Peace of the Church, and make a Schism. He declares to them that he professes the Faith of the four first Councils, and the Doctrine contain'd in the Letter of St. Leo; and he admo∣nishes them, if they have yet any scruple, to come to him that they may have it resolv'd. This Let∣ter is dated Febr. 16. 556.

The seventh Letter is this Pope's Confession of Faith address'd to the whole Church, wherein he declares, That he has a Veneration for the four first Councils, and that he will never undertake to lessen the Authority of their Decisions about the Faith, that he follows and approves the Canons which were receiv'd by the Church of Rome: That he is ready to Vindicate the Letters which his Predecessors, beginning at Celestine, and ending at Agapetus, had written in Defence of the Faith and the Authority of the four first Councils; That he Condemns those whom they have condemn'd, and Receives those whom they have receiv'd, even Theodoret and Ibas, whom he believes to be Ortho∣dox.

The nine following Letters are written to Sabandus Bishop of Arles, or to Childebert King of France: In these Letters he sends to Childebert his Confession of Faith: He grants the Pallium and the Office of Vicar to Sapandus; he prays Childebert to maintain this Bishop in his Rights, and complains that he would have him judg'd by another Bishop. He prays that the Revenues of the Church of Rome that are in France, may be employ'd for buying Garments to the Poor, and that they may be sent to him. There are also the Fragments of some other Letters of Pelagius, writ∣ten to several Persons: The first are about the Ordination of Paulinus Bishop of Aquilcia, made by the Bishop of Milan: He confesses that the Bishops of these two Sees have mutually ordain'd one another; but he affirms that this Ordination was made in that City whose See was vacant. He re∣jects the Ordination of Paulinus, because it was at Milan, against the Will of the Holy See, and the Order of the Emperor. He remarks, That even during the Wars between the Goths and Franks, the Ordination of the Bishop of Milan had been stopped, until he receiv'd Orders from the Empe∣ror. In the third he declares, That 'twas a year before he Ordain'd him who was chosen Bishop of Syracuse, because he was married and had Children; but because those of Syracuse would not choose another, he thought fit to pass it by, after he had promis'd to him, that he would neither directly nor indirectly take any part of the Possessions of the Church, nor leave any thing to his Children or Heirs. The other Letters concern particular Affairs, as the Foundations of Churches. He re∣marks, That for building a Church they should choose a Place where no Body has been bu∣ried.

AGNELLUS.

'TIS thought that this Agnellus, who was a rich Man, and descended of a good Family, was Bishop of Ravenna from the Year 558 to the Year 566, and that he was the Author of a Let∣ter to Armenius concerning the Faith, which is found in the Bibliotheque of the Fathers. Trithemius being the only Person who speaks of this Author and this Work, there is no full assurance whether it be so or no. However it be, this Letter is inconsiderable: The Author affirms in it, That the Ho∣ly Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

LEONTIUS. * 1.68

LEontius, a Native of Constantinople, was an Advocate, and afterwards a Monk in the Laura of St. Sabas; he liv'd till about the end of the sixth Century, for he reckons Eulogius amongst the Bishops of Alexandria, who held this See from the Year 581, to the Year 604. He is different from Leontius Byracenus, who is mention'd in the Life of St. Sabas, and St. Quiriacus; for this Leontius was an Origenian, and defended the Doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsuesta: But he on the contrary declar'd openly against Origen and Theodorus.

The first contains an Abridgment of the History of our Faith, short Remarks upon the Doctrines of Arius, Sabellius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, an Exposition of the Faith of the Church about the Tri∣nity and Incarnation, and the distinction of Nature and Personality.

The second contains a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, agreeable to that of the Jews, and of those of the New agreeable to ours, and general Proofs of the Coming of the Messias.

The third contains a List of the Fathers, who liv'd from the Birth of Jesus Christ until Constantine, and also of some of those who flourish'd since. He speaks also there of the Principal Heresies which arose in that space of time.

In the fourth Action he inquires into the Origine of the Heresies of Macedonius, Apollinaris, Ne∣storius, Eutyches, and continues this History down to the Condemnation of Dioscorus.

The fifth Action relates the Controversies that arose in the Church, upon occasion of the Council of Chalcedon, which were settled by the Authority of the Emperor, and renew'd again by the Question of the Corruptibility and Incorruptibility of Jesus Christ, to which the Agn•…•…tae and Tritheites succeeded.

The four following Actions contain Answers to the Objections which were made against the Council of Chalcedon: The first answers the Historical Difficulties, the second the Reasoning Part, and the third the Authorities of the Fathers. The last explains the Passages of the Council, which were alledg'd to prove that the Council favour'd the Doctrines of Nestorius.

The tenth Action is against the Gaianites, the Agnoetes and Origenists.

The same Author has also written three Books against the Error of Nestorius and Eutyches. The first is entitled, A Confutation of the contrary Figments of Nestorius and Eutyches, concerning the Di∣vinity and Humanity of Jesus Christ. He proves against Eutyches, that there are two Natures, and against Nestorius, that there is but one Hypostasis, or Person in Jesus Christ: He explains in what sense St. Cyril could say that there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate; and proves what he affirms by Reasons and the Authorities of the Fathers.

The second Book is against the Error of those who maintain'd that the Body of Jesus Christ was incorruptible before his Resurrection: 'Tis compos'd of two Parts; the first is a Dialogue of one that is Orthodox with one engag'd in that Error; and the second is a Collection of the Authorities of the Fathers, to which he prefixes the Books ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

In the third Book he descovers the Artifices which the Nestorians of his time made use of for dis∣guising their Sentiments. He says, That at first they feign themselves to be no wise concern'd for the Memory of Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, that they make a show of appro∣ving the Council of Chalcedon, that they cause the Books of their Authors to be read, that they en∣tice Men with fait Promises, that they make a feint of condemning Nestorius, that they make no scruple to communicate with Catholicks, and even to take the Communion with them, for, say they, the Bread which is offer'd to represent Jesus Christ, has always a greater Blessing then common Bread, or that which the Philomarianites offer in the Name of * 1.69 Mary. After this he is transported to Invectives against the Memory of Theodorus. He accuses him of being one whom St. John Chry∣sostom exhorts to do Penance for his want of Moderation, of having corrupted the Scripture by his Commentaries, of endeavouring to usurp the See of the Church of Tarsus, if he had not been hin∣dred by Theophilus; of having condemn'd the Name of the Mother of God; of scoffing at the Wri∣tings of the Fathers; of giving a mean and low sense to the Scripture, altogether unworthy of the Holy Spirit; of speaking ill of Job, and rejecting the Canonical Epistles; of having interpreted the Psalms after a Jewish manner, by applying them all to the History of the Time, and referring but three of them to Jesus Christ; of interpreting the Canticles of Carnal Amours; of rejecting the Books of Esdras and the Chron••oles; of making another Creed then that of Nice; of making a new Mess; of not believing the last Judgment; of denying Original Sin; of saying with the Manichees, that Darkness was a Substance; of affirming that Antichrist should be annihilated; of affirming that many Events came by Chance; and lastly to load him with Impiety, of affirming that Jesus Christ

was a mere Man, and yet that he ought to be ador'd. After this Leontius quotes some passages ta∣ken from the Writings of Theodorus, to prove that he maintain'd the same Doctrines which were * 1.70 taught by Nestorius.

The same Author wrote a Treatise to prove, That the Letters alledg'd by the Eutychians under the Names of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Julius, and St. Athanasius, were supposititious. This he endeavours to prove by showing the Agreement between some Expressions of this Heretick and his Disciples, and those that are in these Letters. This Argument is not very convincing, for the Fathers may possibly use the same Expressions with Apollinaris and his Disciples, tho in another sense.

There is also a Treatise of his by way of Dialogue, which contains the Objections of the Ace∣phali, and the Answers which may be given them; a Collection of Propositions against those who deny that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Union, and a Sermon on the Festival which is celebrated between Easter and Whitsunday. There are also in the Manuscripts some other Trea∣tises of this Author, as a Treatise of the two Natures against the Monophysites, and a Disputation against an Arian Philosopher. The Treatise of Sects was printed in Greek at Basle 1570, in Octa∣vo, and in Latin translated by Leuvenclavius, with the Embassy of Alexis Commenus; and it has been since inserted into the first Addition to the Bibliotheque of the Fathers. The other Treatises have been publish'd in Latin by Canisius, and put into the last Bibliotheque of the Fathers printed at Lyons, the greatest and largest Collection of the Fathers that ever was made. The Sermon upon the Festival between Easter and Whitsunday was publish'd in Greek by Father Combes••s, in the first Addition to the Bibliotheque of the Fathers, with another Sermon upon the same Subject, written by another Leontius Bishop of Cyprus, which is quoted in the seventh Council, Act 4. He of whom we have now spoken, had a very subtil Wit, but not very sublime; he was moderately learned and much prejudic'd; his style is mean, and not at all pleasant.

FORTUNATUS.

VEnantius Honorius Fortunatus was born in Italy, and after he had studied at Ravenna, he settled in France. He was Ordain'd Priest of the Church of Poictiers towards the Year 565, and some time after Bishop of the same Church. He liv'd till the beginning of the next Age, and was an in∣timate Friend to Gregory of Tours. The principal Works of this Author are written in Verse. He wrote four Books of the Life of St. Martinus, address'd to Gregory of Tours his intimate Friend, in acknowledgment for the Cure he had receiv'd of a Distemper in his Eyes, by rubbing them with the Oyl of a Lamp lighted before the Sepulchre of this Saint, and eleven Books of different Po∣ems.

The first contains the Description of many Churches, and the Praises of Leontius Bishop of Bour∣deaux.

The second the Hymns upon the Cross, and among them the Pange lingua, and the Vexilla regis, which are his, the Verses in the Praise of the Clergy of Paris, with a Description of the Church of that City, and Verses to the Honour of many Saints.

The third contains Letters to Euphronius Bishop of Tours, and to Felix Bishop of Nantes, a De∣scription of the Church of Nantes, and Verses address'd to many Bishops.

The fourth Book is a Collection of Epitaphs; to which are joyn'd a Letter to Avitus Bishop of Clermont, and a Poem upon the Conversion of the Jews, a Letter to Siagrius Bishop of Autun, which accompanies a Piece of Poetry upon the Life of Jesus Christ, wherein he is tyed up to a certain num∣ber of Words and Letters. Lastly, this Book contains many Papers of Verses.

The fifth and sixth are for the most part written upon profane Subjects.

In the seventh, among other Pieces, there is an excellent Description of the Assembly of the Saints in Heaven: There he notes the Country where each of the Apostles was in his time believ'd to dye.

That which is most remarkable in the eighth is the Pieces address'd to Chilperic, and the Epigrams upon the Actions of St. Martin.

The tenth is made up of many Papers to the Princess Radegondes.

The eleventh is not yet printed.

Besides these Poetical Works, Fortunatus wrote also in Prose the Lives of many Saints, as the Monk Himonius affirms. There are many of them among those which have been collected by Suri∣us and Bellandus; and among others, the Lives of St. Hilary of Poictiers, St. Albinus of Angers, St. Germanus of Paris, St. Medardus of Noyon, St. Radegondes, St. Maurilius of Angers, St. Remigius of Rhemes, St. Marcellus of Paris, St. Amandus of Rhodes.

Fortunatus pass'd in his own time for an excellent Orator and a good Poet, and not without rea∣son; for he did not only excel all the other Poets of his Age, but he came near to those of a better,

not only for the Truth, but the Purity of his Expressions, not for the Beauty of his Verse, but for the Poetical turn he gave it, and the wonderful easiness wherewith he wrote in Verse. * 1.71

His Poetical Works were printed at Mayence in 1603, and in 1616, and inserted into the Bibli∣otheques of the Fathers: But these Editions were very imperfect. F. Labbee has promis'd a more large and correct Edition of them, which is said to be all ready for the Press.

BANDONINIA.

THis Maid was one brought up by St. Radegondes; she has added a second Book of the Life of this Saint, to that of Fortunatus: 'Tis printed by Surius, Tome 4. at the 13th day of August.

St. GERMANUS Bishop of Paris.

WE have an excellent Letter of this Holy Bishop written to Queen Brunechildes, wherein he ex∣horts her very smartly, and withal very respectfully, to hinder King Sigibert from making * 1.72 War upon King Chilperic: In the Title he assumes the Name of a Preacher. It is publish'd in the fifth Tome of the Councils, p. 923.

MARTINUS of Bracara.

MArtinus, who was born in Italy, came into Gallaecia, where he was Abbot of Dumes, and after∣ward Bishop of Bracara: He flourish'd in the time of Miro, or Theodomirus, King of the Suevi, * 1.73 and Athanildes King of the Goths in Spain. He converted many of the Suevi, held Councils at Bra∣cara in 572, and died in 580.

The Principal Ecclesiastical Work of this Bishop, is a Collection of the Canons of the Greek Church, which he took the pains to translate himself into Latin, finding that the former Translati∣ons were not faithful. It contains 84 Canons or Chapters, whereof 68 concern Ecclesiastical Men.

The manner of living vertuously, a Treatise of the four Cardinal Vertues, attribute to Seneca under the N••me of a Book of Manners, is this Bishops. The Version of some Sentences of the Greek Monks, collected by an unknown Author, is also attributed to him.

PASCHASIUS.

PAschasius a Deacon, who liv'd in the time of Martin of Bracara, translated at his Request, the Questions and Answers of some Greek Monks. He dedicates to him his Translation, which makes the seventh Book of the Lives of the Fathers in Rosweidus. * 1.74

JOANNES SCHOLASTICUS * 1.75 Patriarch of Constantinople.

John surnam'd Scholasticus, because he had follow'd for some time the Bar, was Ordain'd Priest of the Church of Antioch, and had the Commission of a Surrogate to the Church of Constantinople. He was put in the place of Eutycheus Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been turn'd out by Ju∣stinian, and govern'd this Church till the Year 578. After his death Eutychius was restor'd.

This Author made a Collection of the Canons, which were dispos'd according to the Order of the Matters, and another Collection of Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws, and Chapters. His Works are printed in the Bibliotheca Juris publish'd by Justellus.

GREGORY of Tours.

GEorgius Florentius Gregorius Bishop of Tours, was descended of an Illustrious Family of Arvernia, and the Son of Florentius Brother of Gullus Bishop of Clermont. He succeeded Euphronius Bishop of * 1.76 Tours in the Year 574.

The principal Work of Gregory is his History of France, divided into ten Books. In the first, having made a Confession of his Faith, and given a Scheme or Abridgment of Ecclesi∣astical History from the beginning of the World, he relates the Origine of Christianity among the Gauls, by Photinus Bishop of Lyons, and the famous Mission of seven Bishops sent in time of the Emperor Decius, viz. St. Saterninus to Tholouse, St. Gatianus to Tours, St. Trophimus to Arle••, St. Paul to Narbonna, St. Denis to Paris, St. Stremonius to Clermont, and St. Martial to Lemovicum. He con∣cludes this Book with the death of St. Martin, and in those that follow he continues the Ecclesiasti∣cal and Profane History of the Gauls and Franks until his own time, i. e. until the Year 596. Fre∣degarius has since added to it an eleventh Book, wherein he has continued the History to the Reign of Charlemagne.

He wrote also eight other Books, concerning the Miracles or the Lives of the Saints. In the first he relates the Miracles of Jesus Christ, the Apostles and Martyrs: In the second he recounts many Miracles of St. Justin, who was martyr'd in Arvernia. The four following Books contain many Miracles of St. Martyn of Tours; the seventh contains the Lives of some Holy Monks; entitled, The Lives of the Fathers, at the end whereof is a Letter concerning the History of the seven Sleepers: And the last is concerning the Glory or the Miracles of some holy Confessors. He himself mentions his Works, which were printed at Paris in 1640.

Besides this, he wrote a Commentary upon the Psalms, and composed a Treatise De Cursibus Ec∣clesiasticis, or The Divine Offices: The Lives of some Saints are also attributed to him. He speaks of a Preface which he had prefix'd to a Treatise of Messes written by Sidonius. Sigibert says that he compos'd his History of France in the way of an Epitome, and made a Chronicon.

This Author had reason to confess himself that his style was rude and rustical; which ought not to be taken for a Figure, but a sincere Confession of the thing as it is: His style is low and mean, his words are harsh. He was credulous and simple as to the matter of Miracles, and vented boldly such Histories as are uncer••ain or fabulous. But notwithstanding this his History is very useful, and contains many things of great consequence. He died in the Year 596.

GILDAS.

GIldas, to whom is given the Name of Wise, was born in England in the Year 520, which was fatal to the Saxons, for the Battel fought by Arthur King of the Brittons, near the Mountain of Badon; which made this Author be surnam'd Badonicus, to distinguish him from another Gildas elder * 1.77 then he, surnam'd the Albanian. He was the Disciple of Istutus the Abbot of Morgan, and was made Abbot of Bangor, and founded a Monastery at Venetia in Brittain.

In the Year 564 he wrote a Lamentation for the Miseries of England, with a severe Reprimand to the Members of that Kingdom. In this Work he describes rather by weeping then declaiming, * 1.78 as he himself says, the former and later Miseries of poor England. He speaks freely against its Dis∣solution of Manners, without sparing Kings, against the Crimes from which it was deliver'd after a terrible manner. He uses the words of the Prophets to terrifie them, and afterwards addresses his Discourse particularly to the Clergy, and makes a most hideous Representation of their Manners. England, says he, has Bishops enough, but they are either Fools, or Ministers to the Passions of Great or unchaste Men: It has Clergy enough, but for the most part they are all wicked and whoremongers: They have only the Name of Pastors, and are at the bottom Wolves prepar'd to kill the Souls of their Sheep: They never think of doing good to the People, but only how to fill their Bellies; they seek for Churches, but it is only out of a greedy desire of filthy gain; they teach the People, but at the same time they give them bad Examples; they very seldom offer Sacrifice, and never go to the Altar with a clean Heart; they flatter the People in their Crimes, and seek only to satisfie their Passions; they very seldom speak the Truth, they despise the Poor, and make Court to Riches; they canvass for, and purchase Ecclesiastical Offices, &c. After he has given this frightful Pourtraiture of the Clergy of England, he proposes to them the Ex∣amples of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp: He uses the words of the Prophets and Apostles for repro∣ving them, and upbraiding them with their Vices. He concludes with a Prayer to God to preserve the small number of good Pastors that was left.

This is the only true Work of Gildas, for the ridiculous Predictions that are attributed to him are a pure Forgery; and there is no Probability that he compos'd the Comedy call'd Aulularia, altho it goes under his Name in some Manuscripts. There are found in the Manuscripts of England, some Manuscripts that go under the Name of Gildas, which may be rather his than the former. His style is pure enough for his Age. He spoke with extraordinary earnestness, and unparallel'd freedom. He died in 570.

EVANTIUS.

EVantius or Evantus, Bishop of Vienna, whose Name is among the Subscriptions of the first Council of Mascon in 582, of the third of Lyons in 583, of the third of Valentia in 584, and of the second of Mascon in 585, passes for the Author of a Letter, written against those who be∣liev'd that the Blood of Animals is impure, altho their Flesh be not so. There he maintains that we may eat of the Blood of Beasts, and that it is a Jewish Superstition to abstain from it. Never∣theless 'tis certain that the whole Church continued a long time in this Abstinence, and the Greek Church even to this day. The Letter of Evantius was publish'd by Canisius, Tom. 5. Lect. Antiq. and plac'd at the end of the sixth Tome of the Bibliotheque of the Fathers at Collen, and in the last Bibliotheque at Lyons.

FERREOLUS.

GRegory of Tours assures us, That this Ferreolus Bishop of Ucecia, was a Person of great Holiness and Wit, and that he wrote some Letters in imitation of Sidonius. They are now lost, but in * 1.79 compensation for them, we have now in the Code of Benedict of Aniana a Rule which he compos'd for the Monks of a Monastery, whereof he was the Founder, and to which he gave his own Name. He submitted it to the Judgment of Lucretius Bishop of Dia.

SEDATUS and CHRYSIPPUS.

CAnisius has given us a Homily of Epiphanius, under the Name of Sedatus: 'Tis thought that there was a Bishop of Biterrae of this Name, who assisted at the Councils of Toledo and Narbonna, in 589. * 1.80 This Homily is of no great value, no more then that under the Name of Chrysippus, who is also be∣liev'd to be cotemporary, concerning the Praises of the Virgin Mary: but this is so ridiculous, and full of emptiness, that it deserves not to be mention'd.

PELAGIUS the Second. * 1.81

I Do not reckon in the number of Ecclesiastical Writers, the Popes John the Third, nor Benedict the First altho to each of them there is attributed a Letter; one concerning the Suffragans, and the other concerning the Trinity, because all the Criticks are agreed that these two Pieces are the Works of Isidorus. I proceed therefore to Pelagius the Second, who was promoted to the See of the Church of Rome in 577, and fill'd it till the beginning of the Year 590: For altho the first, se∣cond, eighth and ninth Letters ascribed to the same Pope, are also the Work of the same Impostor, yet the same cannot be said of the others.

The third is taken out of the Life of St. Gregory, written by John the Deacon; It is address'd to St. Gregory, who was then also Deacon, and was at Constantinople, to put him in mind to sollicite the Emperor to send Succors into Italy against the Lombards. This Letter is dated October the 4th, 584.

In the fourth to Aunacarius Bishop of Auxerra, he praises the Piety of the Kings of France: He declares to him, that he hopes they were so far from joyning with the Lombards, that they would send Relief to Italy and the Romans: He prays Aunacarius to exhort them to do it, and sends him some Reliques. He had written a former Letter to this Bishop, wherein he congratulates him up∣on the state of the Church of France: This Letter is the last, altho it precede that which we have now spoken of: For it is dated in the fith Year of the Empire of Tiberius, which is 582, and the o∣ther is dated October the 5th, in the seventh Year of Tiberius, which is 584.

The fifth Letter is address'd to Elias Bishop of Aquileia, and to the Bishops of Istria, who had separated from the Church of Rome about the Affair of the three Chapters. 1. In it he recommends to them the Authority of the Holy See. 2. He declares that he holds the Faith and Doctrine de∣creed by the four General Councils, and contain'd in the Letter of St. Leo. 3. He reproves Elias and his Adherents for separating from the Church. 4. He proves to them by passages of Scripture the necessity of being united to the Church, and of living in peace with their Brethren. 5. He ex∣horts them earnestly to re-unite themselves to the other Churches.

The sixth Letter of Pelagius, address'd to the same Persons, is written upon the same Subject. He presses them yet more earnestly to reconcile themselves to the Church; But because they chiefly grounded themselves upon what the Council of Chalcedon, which was approv'd by St. Leo, had done, therefore he proves to them, that this Pope did not approve what the Council had decreed about the Faith, and that he was perswaded, that what concern'd the Persons ought to be re-examin'd. He alledges to them passages out of St. Austin and St. Cyprian, to convince them, that their Separation from the Church put them out of the way of Salvation. In fine, he exhorts them to send Deputies to Rome, to explain themselves, and treat of a Re-union, or to assemble at Ravenna, to enter upon a Conference there.

These Letters not prevailing with the Bishop of Aquileia, and his Brethren, to return to the Church, Pelagius sent to them a third Letter larger then the former: It was written by St. Gregory, who was yet but a Deacon. There he represents to these Bishops the Evils which cause the Schism and Division; and afterwards resutes the Reasons which induc'd them to believe that Justinian had violated the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, by causing the three Chapters to be condemn'd. He maintains that St. Leo did only approve the Articles of Faith defin'd by this Council, and that perhaps he was deceiv'd as to Matter of Fact. He answers to the Opposition that was made by Vigilius of the Occidentalists, That it was no wonder, if the Latins, who did not perfectly under∣stand Greek, found it difficult to know the Errors of those Authors who were thought worthy of Condemnation. But distrusting this Answer, he brings the Example of St. Peter to excuse the Conduct of Vigilius; and says. That if this Holy Apostle chang'd his Opinion and Behaviour about the Observation of the Jewish Ceremonies, it was not so much to be blam'd in Vigilius, that he had chang'd his Judgment and Conduct in the Affair of the three Chapters. This Comparison is of lit∣tle force, but that which follows has yet less,—Do we not read, says he, that God himself changes his Designs? He uses afterwards the Testimony of St. Austin, to show that the Dead may be anathema∣tiz'd. After this, he proceeds to the Examination of the three Chapters: He relates the passages of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, which appear most agreeable to the Error of Nestorius, and the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers who condemn it. He shows, That the Letter of Ibas, reproaches St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, and that it favours the Error of Nestorius. He adds, That the Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon did not approve it; and that tho they had done it, yet the Matters of Faith ending in the sixth Action of this Council, what was done afterwards had not the same Autho∣rity. Lastly, he says, about the third Chapter, That all the Writings of Theodoret, are not con∣demn'd, but only those which are compos'd against St. Cyril. In fine, in answer to the favourable Testimonies which John of Antioch may have given to Theodorus, he observes, That the Fathers of∣tentimes praise Hereticks, and quotes particularly those who commend Origen. He concludes with exhorting the Bishops of Istria, to reconcile themselves to the other Orthodox Bishops, and prays God to inspire them with the desire and love of Peace, to which he exhorts them.

These are the true Letters of Pelagius; In the three last the style of Gregory, who succeeded him, may be discern'd. * 1.82

There are in Ivo of Chartres, and in Gratian some Decrees attributed to Pelagius, which are printed in the fifth Tome of the Councils, p. 954, 955, and 956. They appear to me to be ancient and genuine.

In the first he wishes that Monks may not be chosen for a Guard to the Church, because the dis∣charge of that Office is very different from the Monkish Life. A Monk should live in quiet, and em∣ploy himself in Prayer and Working with his Hands; all which are very remote from his Employ∣ment, who is entrusted with the Affairs of the Church: And therefore it is more convenient to pro∣mote an old Monk to the Priesthood, then to make him one of the Guards.

In the second he allows, That a Man may be ordain'd Deacon, who having left his Wife, had Children by a Maid-servant without espousing her, altho it be against the Laws and the Canons, meerly upon the account of the want of such as were dispos'd to be Clergy-men. He ordains also, That this Maid-servant shall be put into a Monastery to make there Profession of Continence.

The third is about the Election of a Bishop.

The fourth forbids the Bishops of Sicily to exact more then two shillings of the Parishes of Si∣cily.

The fifth and sixth require that Ecclesiasticks should still be judg'd by Ecclesiastical Judges, accord∣ing to the Civil Laws.

EULOGIUS.

EUlogius, who sate in the See of the Church of Alexandria from the Year 581, to the Year 608, was well vers'd in Ecclesiastical Matters, and wrote many Books. The Bibliotheque of Photius has preserv'd to us the Memory and Arguments of them. In Vol. 182 and 208, he speaks of six Books of this Author against Novatus, or rather against Novatian; but the Greeks always confound these two Persons, and were very little inform'd in their History. This appears by what this Author relates. He says that Novatus was Arch deacon of the Church of Rome under Pope Cornelius; that he was to succeed him according to the custom of that Church; that Cornelius having observ'd that Novatus was too proud, and discover'd that he had a Design upon his Life, had Ordain'd him Priest, on purpose to take from him all hopes of arriving at the Bishoprick of Rome: That he in revenge, had taken occasion to separate from him, because Cornelius admitted to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries those who had fall'n into Crimes, after they had been punish'd with a Penance propor∣tionable to the greatness of their Sin; That he accus'd him of receiving Sinners, and that he, became the Head of a Party, who were call'd Cathari or Puritans.

Eulogius opposes this Allegation of Novatus in the four first Books of his Work. In the fifth he defends the Veneration due to the Reliques of the Saints, which the greater part of the Novatians of Alexandria could not approve. In the last he opposes the Writings of the Novatians, and parti∣cularly that which was entitled, The Dispute of Bishop Novatus, a Work very contemptible for its manner of writing and the Matters contain'd in it: For it relates, that under the Empire of Decius, the Officer Perennius had forc'd many Christians, by the violence of Torments, to worship Idols: That Macedonius Bishop of Rome had sacrific'd, and was follow'd in so doing by nine Priests of the Church of Rome; That Novatus was the only Person who refus'd, and upon this occasion he recites what he had answer'd to the Judge. 'Tis pretended that many Bishops joyn'd with Novatus, and separated from those who had fall'n into Idolatry; and lastly, that the Bishops of Alexandria did not acknow∣ledge him for Bishop. Eulogius refutes these Fables in his third Book. Photius assures us, That the style of this Author is indifferently exact as to words, but altogether barbarous as to construction, but that his Work is useful; that he explains very well the passages of Scripture which fully confute the Error of his Adversaries; and lastly, that it is pleasant and persuasive.

He speaks also of some other Works of Eulogius in Vol. 225, and 226. The first is a Treatise divided into two Books, which contain an Apology for the Letter of St. Leo, and the Accusation of Timothy and Severus who had accused him. He shows that these Hereticks calumniate this holy Pope, and charge him with such Doctrines as he never held, by taking out some words out of the pla∣ces where they were, and cutting off that which might serve to justifie them. This is prov'd at large in the Extract related by Photius, Vol. 225.

He did undertake the Defence of St. Leo in another Work, against Theodosius and Severus, wherein he also explains the sense of this Expression of St. Cyril, That there is but one Nature of the Word In∣carnate.

Lastly, Photius speaks also of an Invective which this Author wrote against one of the Disciples of Theodosius and the Gaianites, wherein he shows that the Agreement they had made amongst

themselves, was fals•• and indefensible, because it tended only to oppose the Truth. There was also in this Tome a Letter which Eulogius wrote, when he was yet a Priest, to Eutychius Archbishop of * 1.83 Constantinople, which contains an Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.

JOHN the Faster.

John of Cappadocia, surnam'd the Faster, upon the account of his great Abstinence, was Or∣dain'd Bishop of Constantinople, in the Year ••8••, and govern'd that Church until the Year 596. St. Isidore of Sevil assures us, That he wrote a Letter about Baptism to his Predecessor Leander, wherein he said nothing that was new, but only collected and repeated the Opinions of his Ancestors, about the three Dippings. He compos'd also some Homilies, which perhaps are among those of St. Chrysostom; That about Penance is the most famous. Father Morinus has publish'd two Peniten∣tial Books of this Bishop. He was not a Man of a very sublime Wit, but he was one of great Pie∣ty and Charity; and lov'd Order and Discipline. He was sharply reprov'd by St. Gregory for ta∣king upon him the name of Oecumenical Patriarch, because this Pope look'd upon this Title as a sign of Ambition, altho in the sense of the Greeks it was innocent, and signified nothing less then St. Gre∣gory thought.

The Greeks perhaps reprov'd this Bishop more justly, for contributing to the Relaxation of Dis∣cipline by moderating the Rigor of the Canons: This is objected to him by the Bishops of a Coun∣cil held in the time of Alex••s Comnenus; yet it does not appear that he fell into any Excess of Relaxa∣tion; for he only permitted the time of Penance to be shortned, in favour of those who were more servent, and appear'd more contrite▪

JOHN of Biclarum.

John Abbot of Biclarum, originally of the Race of the Goths of the Province of Portugal, after he had studied at Constantinople, came to Spain, where he was persecuted by King Leuvigildus, who * 1.84 being an Arian, would force him to embrace his Religion. He was banish'd to Barcelona, where he suffer'd very much for the space of ten years. When this was ended, he settled a Monastery, call'd Biclarum, situated in the Valleys of the Pyrenees; and afterwards he was chosen Bishop of Gironda. He wrote a Chronicon which begins at the Year 566, and ends at 590, and which serves as a Con∣tinuation to that of Victor of Tunona. He made also a Rule for his Monks, which is very useful for all the World, if we may believe Isidore.

ANASTASIUS SINAITA.

ANastasius a Monk of Mount Sin••, ascended the Throne of the Church of Ancioch, in the Year 561. He was forced from it, and banish'd in the Year 572, by the Emperor Justinus the * 1.85 Younger; but at last he was restor'd under the Emperor Mauricius in the Year 595. He died a∣bout the Year 599. He had another for his Successor, who went under the same Name, which gave occasion to confound them. 'Twas the first of these two who was the Author of some Trea∣tises. The first and most assured Work of his, is a Treatise, entitled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or a Guide to the True Way, written against the Acephali. Anastasius begins this Book, which was compos'd for an In••truction about the Faith, with laying down some Maxims and Rules, which the Faithful ought to follow for their good Conduct, and to prevent Falling into Error. These Rules are useful and rational. Here follows the Translation of them.

'Tis necessary for a Man, above all things, to lead a pure and innocent Life, and to have the Ho∣ly Spirit in him: After this, he must know the Definitions that are most necessary, and have an exact Knowledge of the Doctrines of his Adversaries, and read their Writings, that he may be able to op∣pose them and confound them from themselves: He must not amuse himself with disputing about the Faith every moment against the first Comer, but read the whole Scripture with a Spirit of Sub∣mission

and Fear, with simplicity of Heart, and without crafty Designs; he must not desire to conceive what surpasses our Understanding, or to distinguish that which is to be understood litteral∣ly from that which is a Metaphor: He must be perswaded that the Church has Traditions about these things which are not in the Holy Scripture; as for instance, That one ought to be fasting when he receives the Holy Eucharist; that he should turn towards the East in the time of Prayer; that the Mother of Christ continued a Virgin, after she had brought forth a Child; that she brought forth Christ in a Cave. Besides this, he must accustom himself to two ways of Disputing against the He∣reticks; one by proposing the passages of Holy Scripture, and another by making use of the Proofs drawn from the thing it self. This last way of Disputing is solid, (if we may believe him) and more effectual; for 'tis easie to corrupt the sense of the words of Scripture, and to oppose an••ther passage of it, as the Hereticks and Jews do every day: 'Tis better therefore to make use of Internal Proofs. 'Tis necessary to be skill'd in Chronology, to know at what time the Father liv'd and when such and such a Here•••••• arose. He must take good heed, le••t when his Adversary is nonpluss'd, and cannot answer, he make a transition to another Question. 'Tis convenient before the Dispute to re∣quire of his Adversary an Oath, that he will say nothing against his Conscience; and also to purge your self from all the Suspicions he may have of you, by condemning the Errors that may be charg'd upon you. He must tell the M••••••physites, that he must not insist upon the Council of Chalcedon, but engage to dispute from the more ancient Fathers, whom they themselves acknowledge for Catho∣licks. He must observe that the M••••••physites may be reprehended from the Oblation of the Chalice because they offer only * 1.86 Wine without any mixture of Water.

Anastasius the Si••••ita, having laid down these Maxims, practises according to them in his Work: For having said that the Catholicks acknowledge two Wills and two sorts of Operations in Jesus Christ, in the second Chapter he gives many Definitions of Terms which he uses for explaining the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In the third Chapter he describes the Dogmes which a Catholick should reject. In the fourth he explains the Oeco•…•… of the Incarnation. In the fifth he approves the five first General Councils. In the sixth he discovers the Original of the Error of Severus. In the seventh he refutes it by the Testimony of the Fathers; and in those that follow he opposes it with many Arguments, and relates what was said in the Conferences which were held with the Theodosians. He objects to himself the Testimonies upon which they founded their Do∣ctrine, and the Arguments they made use of, which he relates in their own words. He answers them first by Reason, and then alledges the Passages of the Fathers, which may serve for an answer to them. In refuting the Gaianites, he makes them say, That the Eucharist is the Body, and not only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ. The Orthodox confesses and confirms this Proposition, and and from thence concludes that the Body of Jesus Christ was corruptible before his Passion, since the Eucharist, which is the Body of Jesus Christ, is subject to Corruption. This Work is very con∣fus'd, 'tis a kind of Rhapsody of divers Conferences, but there is very much Scholastick Subtilty in it. 'Tis apparent that Sc••••lia have been added to it, which are inserted into the Text, and 'tis no less probable, that the Work has been interpolated in some places.

The eleven Books of Anagogical Considerations about the Creation of the World, are more co∣herent and better written; but they are fill'd with Thoughts so mystical and remote from the Litteral Sense, that it cannot but be tedious to read them. [Mr. Alix publish'd the twelfth Book of these Ana∣gogical Contemplations, which had been hitherto suppress'd, in Greek and Latin at London, 1682. Cave p. 420.]

There are five Dogmatical Discourses of the same Author: The first is about the Trinity; the se∣cond about the Immensity of the Divine Nature, which can have no bounds; the third about the Incarnation; the fourth about the Corruptibility and Incorruptibility of Jesus Christ; and the last a∣bout his Resurrection. These Discourses contain many Scholastical Arguments.

F. Combefis has given us six Sermons, in the first Tome of the Addition to the Bibliotheque of the Fathers. The first and second is about the Annunciation of the Virgin; the third about the Trans∣figuration of Jesus Christ; the fourth about the Holy Communion, where he speaks of the Dispositi∣ons that are necessary for a worthy Communicant, and for assisting him at the Holy Sacrifice, and also of the Ceremonies and Prayers of the Oblation; the fifth and sixth are upon the sixth Psalm of David: [The C••••pendi•••••• Institution of the Faith is also reckon'd to be his, which was publish'd by Beza of Vezeli••c••••, Gr. Lat. with five D••alogues about the Trinity, under the Name of St. Atha∣nasius, 1570, and is to be found under the Name of St. Cyril in some Editions of the Bibliotheca Pa∣trum, Cave p. 420.]

There remains only 154 Questions upon the Holy Scripture: There is no doubt, but these, such as they are at present, cannot be Ana••••asius's of Sina, since the Author there quotes the Canons of the Council, held in the Palace of the Emperor after the sixth Council, the Works of St. Maximus, St. John Climac••••, of John Mosch••s, of 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and of Nicephorus; besides that he reckons 700 years from C••••stantine's time to his own. The Je••••ite Gr••••ser••s answers, That these places have been added, but 'tis much more probable that this is the Work of another Author. Gentianus Her∣v••••us, who publish'd them first, pub••••••h'd them under the Name of Anastasius of Nice. There were two of this Name in Antiquity, the one was present at the Council of Chalcedon, and the other at the fifth Council. The Remark that we have made, proves, that they can be neither the one's nor the other's. 'Tis m••nifest, that it is a Work of some Modern Greek, to which the Name of Anasta∣sius

Sinaita is prefix'd by mistake; for in the Greek Manuscript 'tis entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or A Guide to the True Way. Now 'tis evident, that the Work of Anastasius Sinaita which goes under this Title, * 1.87 has nothing like these Questions.

The Guide to the True Way of Anastasius Sinaita, was publish'd in Greek and Latin by Gretserus. The five Dogmatical Discourses, are found in Greek in the Manuscripts of Germany; but they have been printed only in Latin, translated by Tilmanus. The Author of the Version of the Anagogical Questions is not known: They are cited by Glycas. [The Book of his De Oeconomia Christi, is ex∣tant in the Arundelian Library in a Greek Manuscript at Gresham-Colledge, Cave p. 420.] The Questions upon the Scripture were publish'd in Greek and Latin by Gretserus. There are also some other Manuscript Works, as a Sermon upon his Enthronization in the See of Antioch, cited by Ni∣cephorus, another upon his Restauration quoted by the same Author. [These two, together with the Treatise against Philoponus, are reckon'd by Dr. Cave among his Works that are lost, Cave p. 421.] The Answers to the Monks of Scythia, a Treatise of the Rule of a Good Life, two Books of the Structure of Man, a Mystical Contemplation upon the Passion of Jesus Christ. Nicephorus quotes also a Treatise of the same Person against the Book of one Severianus, call'd John Philoponus, which was entituled, The Arbitrator or Judge concerning the Union of the Natures in Jesus Christ. Turrianus has taken from thence a Fragment which is publish'd by Gretserus in the Preface. [Besides all these, there are several other / Tracts of his not yet publish'd, which are said by Labbee to be extant in the Royal Library at Paris, Nov. Biblioth. MSS. par. 2. p. 82. and two Sermons of his which are said by Possevinus to be extant in the Vatican Library, Cave p. 420, 421.] The style of this Author is very indifferent; It is Scholastical, dry, barren and tedious.

EVAGRIUS.

EVagrius was born at Epiphania, a City of the second Province of Syria, under the Empire of Justinian, about the Year 536: After he had studied, he follow'd the Bar, and was a profess'd Advocate at Antioch. This was the occasion of giving him the Name of Scholasticus, for then they were call'd so who pleaded at the Bar. He was made Treasurer and Secretary for the Province by the Emperor Tiberius. He compos'd six Books of Ecclesiastical History, which begin where Theodo∣ret, Socrates and Sozomen end, i. e. at the Year 439, and end at the twelfth Year of Mauritius, which is 594, according to the Vulgar Aera.

This History is very large and exact enough. He relates Matter of Fact from the Authority of the Acts and Historians of the time. The style is not unpleasant: It has an elegance and politeness in the Judgment of Photius, altho there be some times superfluous words in his Discourse. He does often also make Digressions and Relations which are not agreeable to his Design; and he seems to be more vers'd in Profane then Ecclesiastical History: But he has one Advantage above the Ecclesiasti∣cal Historians that went before him, that there is no occasion to upbraid him with being engag'd in some Sect, or with falling into some Error about the Faith or Discipline of the Church.

Robert Stephens publish'd the Original Greek of this Historian from one Manuscript only of the King's Library. Valesius revis'd it since by two Manuscripts, and has made a new Version of it, after those of Musculus and Christopherson. [Besides this History, he wrote two other Pieces which are lost, viz. two Books of Epistles, Orations, &c. and a Panegyrical Oration to Mauricius the Emperor up∣on the Birth of Theodosius; both which are mention'd by himself towards the latter end of his Histo∣ry, Cave p. 433, 434.]

St. JOHN CLIMACUS.

ST. John surnam'd Climacus, because of his Work, entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. a Scale, was born about the Year 525. The ancient Author of his Life tells us, That he could not certainly affirm in what place it pleased God he should be born, nor in what Country he was educated. The Title of * 1.88 Sholasticus, which some Authors give him, would make us believe that he had sometime frequented the Bar, but having retir'd from the World at the Age of sixteen years, there is no probability that he follow'd the Profession of an Advocate. The place of his Retreat upon Mount Sina, is famous for the great number of Monks which dwell there: He himself entred not into a Monastery, but put himself under the Conduct of an ancient Hermit, call'd Martyrius: He continued nineteen years

with this holy old Man in an humble and faithful Obedience to him. After his death St. John re∣tir'd into the Solitude of Thola, about five Miles from the Church which was upon Mount Sina, whither he came on Sundays and Saturdays to a assist at Divine Service, and to receive the Communion. There was a Solitary who put himself under his Conduct. Towards the end of the sixth Age he was chosen Abbot of the Monks of Mount Sina, and govern'd this Monastery for some years; but finding himself near his End, he quitted the Government of this Monastery, and retir'd into the So∣litude, leaving his Brother Georgius in his room. He died of a great Age at the beginning of the next Century. While he was Abbot, he compos'd his Scale of the Cloyster, at the desire of John Abbot of Raithu. This Book was very famous among the Greeks, but the Latines had no know∣ledge of it, for the space of 600 years.

This Scale contains 30 Degrees, which are so many Christian and Religious Vertues, which the Author explains by holy Maxims, and teaches the Practice of them by wi••e Counsels.

The first is of Renouncing the World; the second of the Abaracting from the Things of the World; the third of Pilgrimage, or a Retreat out of the World. To these three Degrees he subjoyns some Reflexions, to show that we must not give credit to Dreams, affirming that the Devil makes use of them to deceive the Solitary.

The fourth Degree is of Obedience. He thinks that it is one of the Effects of this Vertue, that a Monk should confess his sins to his Superior, who is the true and proper Judge, and to him only: He would also have a Monk ready to Confess them to all the World, if his Superior does order him. Upon this Occasion he relates the publick Penance of a Robber, who publickly confess'd most enor∣mous sins, by the Order of an Abbot of a Monastery near the City of Alexandria, whither he had retir'd. From hence he takes occasion to describe the admirable Vertues of the Monks of this Mo∣nastery, and the Penance of one nam'd Isidore, whom this Abbot had oblig'd to kneel down before all those who should enter into the Monastery, and to continue this Practice for the space of seven whole years. He relates also many other Examples of the Patience, Humility, and Obedience pra∣ctis'd by the Monks of this Monastery, whom this Abbot humbled either by sharp Rebukes, or rude Treatment, altho they had not deserv'd them. But nothing is more horrible then the Examples of Penance which our Saint relates in this Degree, and the next which is of Penance, and the Representa∣tion he makes of the Monastery of Penitents, which was but one mile distant from that of which we have now spoken, and govern'd by the same Abbot; it was call'd The Prison, and it did really resem∣ble a Prison for its darkness, its stench and filthiness. In it were shut up many Monks, who having fall'n into some Crimes, desir'd to be shut up there, that they might expiate their Crimes by volun∣tary Torments, which exceeded all that can be imagin'd. Some pass'd Nights and Days standing expos'd to the Injuries of the Weather, others were bound and manacl'd, others had their Feet in Fetters, others were lying upon Ashes; Some were beating their Breast with their Fist, others were tearing their Face: They had all a sadness visible in their Countenance; some made dreadful La∣mentations, others shed abundance of Tears, the greatness of Grief hindred others from speaking, and they are almost nothing at all. Lastly, having practis'd all these kind of the Austerities during their Life, they desir'd that after their Death the honour of Burial should be deny'd them.

The sixth Degree is of the Meditation of Death. After he has made some Reflexions upon the Usefulness of this Practice, he proposes some Examples of the wonderful Effects it has had upon the Minds of some Hermits.

The seventh is of the Grief of Penance, and the Necessity of Tears. There he relates as a great wonder, the History of a Solitary, who on the Eve of his death, had a Rapture, wherein he ima∣gin'd, that he saw Men who demanded an Account of his Life; to whom he answer'd with a loud voice, telling them what he had done, and what he had not done.

The eighth Degree is of Meekness which should overcome Anger. There he describes the deadly Effects of this Poison, and prescribes Means for subduing it.

The ninth teaches the Solitaries to forget Reproaches.

The tenth condemns Evil-speaking and rash Judging.

The eleventh recommends Silence.

The twelfth is against Lying.

The thirteenth blames Envy and Sloth, and chiefly that which a Man is guilty of in the time of Prayer.

The fourteenth disswades from Intemperance.

The fifteenth contains the Praises of Chastity. There he shows the Consequence of this Vertue, and the Enormity of the Crime which is opposite to it. He observes that it is more punish'd in the Church then Heresie it self; he condemns it even to the Motions of Lust which happen in the time of sleep. He prescribes for a Remedy, that they should clothe themselves with Sackcloth, and co∣ver themselves with Ashes, that they should pass the night standing, that they should suffer hunger and thirst, that they should lodge in the Tombs, and be humble and charitable.

The sixteenth Degree opposes Covetousness, which is there call'd a Monster with many Heads, the Tyrant of our Souls, the Daughter of Infidelity, &c. Voluntary Poverty is taught in the second part of this Degree.

The seventeenth Degree is the Insensibility of Holy and Religious Things, into which Religious Persons often fall.

The eighteenth Degree exhorts Christians to take heed of sleep, which creeps upon them chiefly in the time of Prayer. There he speaks of the usefulness of Common Prayers.

The nineteenth is of Corporal and Spiritual Vigilance.

The twentieth is against deceitful Vanities.

The one and twentieth discovers the Disorders which Vain-glory produces.

The two and twentieth makes a particular Enumeration of the deadly Effects of Pride.

The three and twentieth teaches to oppose blasphemous and impious Thoughts which the Devil suggests, in the time of Holy Actions, to the Monks.

The four and twentieth teaches Mildness and Simplicity.

The five and twentieth unfolds the Advantages of Humility.

The six and twentieth gives Instructions for discerning between Good and Evil, Vertue and Vice, between good and evil Thoughts, and gives Rules for a good Conduct in the Spiritual Life.

The seven and twentieth is of the Sacred Repose of Body and Soul which the Solitary enjoy. This Degree contains many Mystical Thoughts. St. John Climacus observes at the beginning, that the Solitary and Hermetical Life, altho it be more perfect, yet it is not suitable to all the World. He defines the Repose of the Body a state of Tranquility and Peace, wherein all Motions, and all the Corporeal Senses are subject to Reason; and the Repose of the Soul a Serenity of Mind, and calm Meditation, which is exempted from all distraction, and inviolable by Spiritual Thieves who are the Devils. He that is arriv'd at this state, rejects all evil Thoughts which are presented to his Mind; he has no need to be instructed by Discourse, since he is taught by his own Actions; he is not only free from disturbance by the Commotion of his Passions, but he does not so much as know it. He knows the true depth of our Mysteries, without diving into them by Human reasoning. He never ceases to pray and sing praises to God: He has no Care or Anxiety about his Temporal Subsistence; he feels no Emotion by any sensible Object. Lastly, he is possess'd with the Love of the most Holy God, which entirely employs him.

The rest of this Degree contains the Praise of an Hermitical Lfe, which St. John Climacus believ'd to be more excellent then any other, and Precepts for Living well in Solitude.

The eight and twentieth is of the Necessity of Prayer, and the Dispositions we ought to bring to it.

The nine and twentieth is of the perfect Tranquility of a Soul emancipated from Passions, and adorn'd with all sorts of Vertues.

The thirtieth is of Faith, Hope and Charity, which are the Foundation and Bond of all Christian Vertues.

St. John Clymachus joyns to this Book which is for all Monks, a particular Letter to the Abbot of Raithu, about the Qualifications and Dispositions of a Pastor, or rather of a Superior and Abbot, and about the manner wherein he should behave himself towards his Monks.

The Thoughts of St. John Climacus are more sublime, more solid, and more just then those of the greater part of Ascetical Authors; His style is close and elegant: He writes with much brevi∣ty, and includes many Thoughts in a few words: He speaks by Sentences and Aphorisms. He pro∣poses his Thoughts in a figurative way, and inserts many Allusions, many Passages of Scripture, di∣vers Allegories of the History of the Old Testament, some rare Examples, some Parables and Hi∣stories, into his Discourse. This kind of writing renders it obscure, insomuch that his Work stands in need of an Explication. John Abbot of Raithu was the first who compos'd and publish'd Expo∣sitions upon this Author, which are collected together in the Bibliotheque of the Fathers. After∣ward Elias the Metropolitan of Crete, wrote Commentaries upon St. John Climacus, as he had done upon St. Gregory Nazienzen: The Manuscripts are found in many Libraries. Dionysius of Chartres did also make Commentaries upon the Scale; in which there is an old Version of the Scale of St. John Climacus before that of Ambrosius of Camaldulum. This was printed at Venice in 1531, and 1569. A Doctor of Flanders caus'd it to be reprinted at Collen in 1583, together with new Expli∣cations at the end of every Degree. Lastly, Matthew Raderus▪ the Jesuit made a new Version of the Works of St. John Climacus, which was printed with the Greek at Paris in 1633. There are be∣sides this many Manuscripts of this Author in Libraries, which may be useful for making a more cor∣rect Edition. It has been often translated into the Vulgar Tongue: There is a Translation of it in∣to Italian, printed at Venice in 1585. another in the Vulgar Greek by Margunius, printed at Venice in 1590. In our time Mr. Arnaud d' Andilly has made a French Translation of it, which he has re∣form'd and rectified by many Manuscripts in a second Edition. There are added to it considerable Explications, into which he has inserted a good part of the Commentaries of Elias of Crete, and the Life of St. John Climacus, taken out of two ancient Authors who had written it in Greek, whereof the one was a Monk of his Time, and the other an Abbot of the Monastery of Raithu, called Da∣niel.

JOHN of Raithu. * 1.89

John Abbot of the Monastery of Raithu, a Cotemporary to St. John Climacus, wrote a Letter to this Father, a Commendation of, and Commentary upon his Scale. These Works are found in the Bibliotheques of the Fathers.

St. GREGORY.

ST. Gregory was of an Illustrio•••• Family of Rome: His Father was Grandchild to Pope Felix the Second, the Son of Gordia•…•… and Sylvia: He studied at Rome with very good Success; his qua∣lity * 1.90 and merit procur'd him to be quickly preser••'d to the Office of Governour of the City of Rome. After the death of his Father, he concecrated himself to the Service of God, and gave all his Posses∣sions for building and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ministeries. He caused six to be built in Sicily, and one at Rome, whither he himself retir'd. Pelagius the Second ordain'd him Deacon in 582, and drew him forth from his Retreat 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in the quality of a Surrogate, to the Court of the Em∣peror Tiberius. He had not much 〈◊〉〈◊〉, neither did he stay long there: There is only a Confe∣rence mentioned which he had with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eutychius, wherein he maintains against him, That the Bodies of the Blessed after the Resurrection, shall not be of the Nature of Air or Wind, but shall be palpable and solid by their Nature, altho mirac••lously subtil.

He return'd to Rome after the death of Tiberius in 586, where he was employ'd as Secretary to Pope Pelagius. This Pope dying, the Clergy and People chose St. Gregory to fill his place. The Em∣perors were greatly concern'd, that none should be promoted to the Holy See who was contrary to them, and therefore they permitted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him who was chosen to be Ordain'd, till they had approv'd the Election. St. Gregory who s••un'd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dignity as much as others seek it, wrote a Letter to the Emperor Mauritius, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prays him not to consent to his Election, and to order that they quickly proceed to make another. The Governour of Rome detain'd this Letter, and secur'd the Person of St. Gregory, For seas 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••e should fly away, and send to the Emperor the Act, where∣in he had been chosen Bishop of Rome. •…•…ritius who knew St. Gregory particularly well, was very glad at this Election, and order'd that he should be quickly consecrated.

Rome was the afflicted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Disease, whereof Pelagius died, and which kill'd so great a number of People, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was almost •…•…'d into a Desert. During the Vacancy of the See St. Gregory exhorted the People to make 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ i. e. Publick Processions of all the Inhabitants divided into seven Ch••••rs. Sometime after St. Gregory got out of Rome by concealing himself in a Basket, to deceive the G•…•…ds that were set at the Gates for hindering his Escape, and went and hid himself in a Cave in the middle of a Wood; but being discover'd he was Consecrated and Promoted to the See of Rome, on the third of September 590.

Immediately after his Promotion, he made a Publick Profession of his Faith, and wrote Synodi∣cal L••tters to the Eastern Pat•…•…: In them he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Title of the Servant of the Servants of God, in opposition to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Titles which the other Patriarchs assumed. He regulated the sing∣ing and the Service of the Church of Rome, reform'd his Clergy, and put the City in very good or∣der.

A•…•… he was of a very weak Constitution, and subject to many Diseases, yet he endur'd with Courage the Fatigues and Labors of the Bishop•…•…, and discharg'd all the Duties of his Function: He took care of the Temporal and Spiri••••••l Welfare of his Sheep. He concern'd himself in the Defence of the City of Rome against the Lombards, and reliev'd the People with his great Alms, for which he employ'd all the Revenue of St. Peter's Patrimony.

But he took particular care of the Clergy and Bishops of Italy and Sicily, who depended more immediately upon the Bishop of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then others. Ass••on as he understood that any Church was vacant, he sent a Deputy to it, and caus'd a Bishop to be immediately chosen, and himself Ordain'd, or caus'd him who was chosen to be Ordain'd. He quickly applied a Remedy to the Disorders which happen'd in the Churches, and suffer'd not any Disorder in them. Besides the particular Care which St. Gregory had of his own Church, and of those that more nearly concern'd him, he applied himself also to the Affairs of the Universal Church. On the one side he us'd all his Endeavours for quenching that Flame which was kindled about the Affair of the three Chapters in the Church: On the other side he labour'd to deliver Afric from the Schism of the Donatists, and to re-establish there

the Regulations of the Canons. He did often vigorously oppose the * 1.91 Title of Universal Patriarch, which the Patriarchs of Constantinople assum'd to themselves: His Care extended to the most distant places, and even to the most barbarous Nations. He sent the Monk Austin and his Companions to the English to Convert that People. He suffer'd not even the Jews to live in quiet, but sollicited the Superior Powers against them: But he had a particular Consideration of the Bishops his Collegues, he comforted them in their Afflictions, congratulated them and exhorted them upon occasion, and rebuk'd them also freely and briskly for their Faults. He honour'd their Merit with the Ornament of the Pallium, which he sent to them Gratis and freely, and delighted to relieve and protect them in all kind of Rencounters. He watch'd continually for the maintenance of Discipline every where; he persecuted Vices and Disorders wheresoever they happen'd, and would not suffer any Simony in the Church of Jesus Christ. In a word, he us'd his utmost endeavours to have the Canons inviola∣bly observ'd in all the Churches of the World, being perswaded, that in this consisted all the Power and Authority which the Primacy of his See gave him.

All these different Employments did not hinder him from writing many Books. When he was at Constantinople he begun the Morals upon Job, at the desire of Leander Bishop of Sevil, who was then there, and with whom he contracted an intimate Friendship. The Pastoral was the first Book which he wrote after his Ordination, in Answer to the Calumny which John Bishop of Ravenna had rais'd against him, because he refus'd the Bishoprick with so much stiffness. His Pastoral Office ob∣lig'd him to make many Homilies; we have those which he compos'd upon Ezekiel, and forty upon the Gospels. The Dialogues were the Product of the Retirements which he made from time to time.

But before we enter upon a particular Enumeration of these Works, we must give an Abridgment of his Letters, which contain an infinite number of important Points concerning the Discipline of the Church. These are commonly rank'd according to the order of their Dates, and distributed in∣to the Method of fourteen Indictions, which answers to the years of St. Gregory's Pontificat, begin∣ning at the Month of September in the Year 590, which is the ninth Indiction, and ending at the Month of March of the seventh Indiction of the Cycle, according to the Indictions of the Year 604, of the Vulgar Aera, which is the time of St. Gregory's death. These Letters have been since divi∣ded into twelve Books, each of which contain an Indiction, except the second and seventh, which comprehends two of them. The number of Letters amounts to 840, or thereabouts. Since there are many of these Letters which concern the same Points of Discipline, we shall not follow the order of Time, but give an account of them under certain principal Heads.

Concerning Baptism.

ST. Gregory proves, That Baptism does truly and perfectly pardon sins; that it does not only in appearance expiate them, as some think, but it really remits them, altho it leave the Man sub∣ject to Passions, Book 9. Epistle 39. He approves the Opinion of Leander Bishop of Sevil, who re∣mark'd, that it was indifferent to use three Dippings in Baptism, or one only. He adds, that we must follow the Custom of the Church where we are, Lib. 1. Ep. 41.

He would have no Body forc'd to receive Baptism. Ibid. Ep. 45.

He permits Baptism to be given to the Jews, on Sunday or a Festival, if they cannot conveni∣ently wait till Easter, after they have been made to observe a Fast of forty days: But if they be willing to wait till Easter, his Opinion is that they should not be baptiz'd before, Lib. 7. Ep. 24.

As to the Validity of the Baptism of Hereticks, and the manner of receiving them into the Church, he says as it follows here, when he was consulted by Quirinus and the Catholicks of Iberia, That according to the Tradition of the Church, those who have been baptiz'd by Hereticks in the Name of the Trinity, are receiv'd into the Church, either by Unction with Chrysm, or by Imposi∣tion of Hands, or by a bare Profession of the Faith: That in the West the Arians are receiv'd into the Church by laying Hands upon them; that in the East this is done by Unction with Chrysm; that the Manophysites and other Hereticks are receiv'd there by making only a sincere Profession of the Catholick Faith: That the Bonosians, who did not believe in Jesus Christ, and the Cataphrygians who did not believe as they should in the Holy Ghost, but thought Montanus to be him, and the He∣reticks like them, are baptiz'd when they re-enter into the Church, the Baptism which they have re∣ceiv'd not being true, since it was not given in the Name of the Trinity, Book 9. Ep. 61.

The Monks must not be Sponsors, B. 3. Ep. 40.

When it is uncertain whether a Person has been baptiz'd or confirm'd, we must baptize or con∣firm them, rather then suffer them to perish in this doubt, B. 12. Ep. 32.

Of the Unction, that is used at Baptism, or Confir∣mation.

HE writes to the Bishop of Calaris, that Priests are forbidden to use the Unction of Chrysm on the Front of the Baptiz'd, but they may use it upon the Breast, leaving it to the Bishops after∣wards to use it upon the Front, Book 3. Ep. 9. Afterwards speaking of this Prohibition, he says, That it was made because such is the Custom of his Church; but if this be troublesome to those that have another Custom, he does not find fault with the Priests that shall use this Unction in the absence of the Bishop. We have already related another place concerning the Unction which is us'd in the East for receiving Hereticks, B. 9. Ep. 61.

Of the Consecration of the Eucharist.

JAnuarius Bishop of Calaris, being very aged and infirm, was subject to be indispos'd by saying Mess; and after he returned he knew not the place of the Canon where he had left off: And ma∣ny Persons doubted, whether they should receive the Communion of the Hosty thus Consecrated. St. Gregory declares, That they ought not to make any scruple of it, and that they may receive it with assurance, because the infirmity of him that Consecrates, does not change, nor divert the Be∣nediction; but he says, that this Bishop should be admonished not to do the Office, when he finds himself in this Condition, B. 11. Ep. 59.

About Penance.

ST. Gregory has written a Letter expresly against those who believ'd, that after a Penance of three years, one might take his ease, and commit the same Crimes with impunity. There he lays down this excellent Maxim, That true Penance does not only consist in bewailing sins past, but in abstaining from them for the future. Poenitentia est co•…•…ssa flere, & iterum plangenda declinare.

The Clergy who had committed any Crimes, were put under Penance, and shut up in Monaste∣ries, to receive there Corporal Punishment, B. 1. Ep. 18. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 28. B. 3. Ep. 9.

A Clergy-man, who being depos'd, did perform the Duties of his Function, was to be put under Penance all the rest of his Life: yet it was lawful for the Bishop to receive him to Lay-Communion after a long Penance, B. 4. Ep. 5.

A Clergy-man falling into sin, and being put under Penance, can never hope to enter again into the Clergy, B. 1. Ep. 18, & 43. B. 3. Ep. 26.

There is not the same reason of an Abbot who is a Priest, who after his Penance, may be restor'd to his Dignity of Abbot, but not to that of Priest, B. 4. Ep. 4. One who is only an Abbot, and not a Priest, shall continue depos'd for ever, Ib. Ep. 16. A Priest deposed may be made an Abbot, and have the Care of Monasteries, Ib. Ep. 17.

About the Indissolvableness of Marriage.

ST. Gregory proves in the 39th Epistle of the 9th Book, that Marriages are not dissolv'd by the En∣trance of one of the married Persons into a Religious House, altho Human Laws permit the Man to part from his Wife, or the Woman from her Husband, for that end that they may go into a Monastery. He adds in the 44th Letter of the same Book, where he handles also the same Question, That the Law of God does not allow a Man to forsake his Wife for any Cause but that of Adultery. Nevertheless he permits married Persons to part from one another, that they may enter into a Religi∣ous House, when this is done with the consent of both Parties, B. 5. Ep. 49. B. 9. Ep. 39.

In the 32 Letter of Book 8. he determines a particular Case about this Subject. A married Wo∣man had parted from her Husband, and was become a Nun, because she suspected him of Adulte∣ry; but she could not convict him of it, and the married Man purg'd himself by Oath, affirming that he was not guilty. Hereupon the Woman return'd to him, which mov'd her Bishop to Excom∣municate

her and all her Family. St. Gregory wrote to this Bishop, That he must immediately re∣store her Family to Communion; and as to the Woman, he must not suffer her to continue a long time Excommunicate, if it were notorious, that she had no Proofs that her Husband had committed Adultery, and if the Suspicion she had of him was remov'd by his Oath.

Of the Vacancy of an Episcopal See.

WHen a See is vacant, it must be fill'd quickly with a worthy Person, Book 1. Ep. 18, 76, & 79. B. 6. Ep. 1. 'Tis forbidden to leave it vacant more then three Months, B. 6. Ep. 39. During the Vacancy, the Custom of the Church of Rome, as to the Suffragan Bishops of her Metropolis, was to name a Deputy: And St. Gregory gives us many Forms of commissioning these Deputies, B. 1. Ep. 15, 51, 75, 76. B. 2. Ep. B. 19. & 20, 26, 27. 5. Ep. 21. B. 3. Ep. 39. B. 11. Ep. 16, 17, 18, 19. These Deputies made an Inventory of the Goods of the Church, chiefly of the Moveables, B. 3. Ep. 11. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 22. They cannot appropriate to themselves any of the Possessions and Revenues of the va∣cant Church, but they should keep them, B. 2. Ep. 27, & 38. Yet a Recompence may be given to any for their trouble, B. 3. Ep. 11. The Deputy should be present at the Election, B. 12. Ep. 19. Prayers were made for the Future Election of a Bishop, B. 1. Ep. 56. A Church is not to be look'd upon as vacant, when the Bishop is seiz'd with a Disease which hinders him from performing his Of∣fice: In such a case he must not be depos'd, but have one given him for his Assistance, Dispensatorem: He must continue in his station, and enjoy his Revenue, B. 2. Ep. 5. If he desires to Retire, yet they ought not to proceed to the Election of another Bishop, until he has given his Demission in Writing, Ibid.

Concerning the Elections and Ordinations of Bishops.

ST. Gregory does not meddle with choosing the Bishops of the Churches depending upon his Me∣tropolis, but leaves the Clergy and People the Liberty of Election; and when they have chosen one, if he be found worthy, he Ordains him: But if he be found incapable, he orders them to choose another, B. 8. Ep. 18. B. 3. Ep. 2. B. 6. Ep. 38. B. 1. Ep. 56, 57. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 18. B. 8. Ep. 18, 34. B. 12. Ep. 6.

He does not assume to himself the Ordinations of the Bishops which were not his Suffragans, but he would have them Ordain'd by those to whom it belongs, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep 29, 30, 31. B. 11. Ep. 57. When there are no fit Persons found upon the place, he allows the Clergy and People to send Depu∣ties to Rome, to choose one of the Clergy of Italy, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 15. B. 11. Ep. 14. When Per∣sons cannot be found that are every way fit, he allows of such as are indifferently good, B. 4. Ep. 19. When there is a Contest between the Clergy and the People, as happen'd at the Election of a Bi∣shop of Syracuse, when the People chose one Person, and the Clergy chose another, he orders, That they should both come to Rome, and that he shall be preferr'd, who best deserves this Dignity, B. 4. Ep. 47. He would have the Opinion of those who are absent ask'd, if they be of the Nobility, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 29, 30, 31. Tho he does not meddle with Elections, yet he sometimes excludes those who are chosen, as he did Maximus out of the Bishoprick of Salonae, B. 3. Ep. 15. and sometimes he proposes Persons whom he thinks well qualified, B. 3. Ep. 15. He describes to the Electors the Qualifications he ought to have whom they choose, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 29. & B. 4. Ep. 47. He approves of the Elections made by way of Compromise, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 35.

These following are the excellent Rules which St. Gregory prescribes about the Choice of Bishops. The Electors should examin his Life whom they are about to choose, as far as by Law they can: They should not be partial, either for Favour, Sollicitation, or Money, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 26. B. 11. Ep. 19. They should not consider their own particular Profit, but only the Glory of God and the Good of his Church, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 29. B. 4. Ep. 47. They must deny the Bishoprick to those who seek after it, and give it to those that shun it, B. 6. Ep. 4. They must prefer those that are of the Clergy of the Church before others, B. 1. Ep. 56. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 19. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 25.

They must not choose a Lay-man B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 19. ibid. Ind. 2. Ep. 111, 114, 115. B. 3. Ep. 39. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 112, 115. B. 11. Ep. 16. They must reject those who solicite for a Bi∣shoprick, B. 11. Ep. 19. They must not choose a Person too old, B. 12. Ep. 6. nor one of the youn∣ger sort, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 47, & 48.

They must not choose, nor Ordain Bigamists, nor those who have espoused Widows, nor those who are ignorant of Learning, nor those who have any notable defect in their Body, nor those who have done publick Penance, nor those who have any Personal Obligation to another Office, nor Strangers that are unknown, B. 2. Ep. 25.

He that is Ordain'd Priest should know the Psalter, Book 4. Epistle 45.

St. Gregory declares, That Re-ordination is forbidden asmuch as Re-baptization, B. 2. Ep. 32. They must not Ordain an Arch-deacon or Deacon of another Church, without the leave of his Bishop, B. 4. Ep. 19. B. 12. Ep. 16.

Of the Authority and Usefulness of Councils.

ST. Gregory had a very particular Veneration for the Decrees and Canons of General Councils, that are received in the Church, and seems to be perswaded that he could not meddle with them. He was no sooner promoted to the Pontificat, but he solemnly declar'd in his Letter to the Patriarchs, That he reveered the four first General Councils, as he did the four Gospels; and that he had also a great respect for the fifth General Council, B. Ep. 24. He repeats the same thing in Book 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 10.

He acknowledges the Necessity of Provincial Councils for maintaining Discipline and Judging of Bishops, B. 1. Ep. 1. 33. 16. 72, 82. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 47. B. 3. Ep. 9. Ep. 8. B. 7. Ind. 11. Ep. 70, 111, 112. B. 12. Ep. 32. The Metropolitan ought to assemble them, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 47 & 48. The Roman Church does not receive the Canons of the Council of Constantinople, B. 6. Ep. 31. He wrote to the Bishops of France to Call a Council for Regulating their Discipline, B. 7. Ind. 112. Ep. 111.

Of the Primacy and Rights of the Bishop of Rome.

THe Holy See, according to St. Gregory, does not use its Authority, but only to punish Vice: Thus all the Bishops are subject to it, from the very moment that they commit any Fault; but Humility makes all the Bishops e ual, when there is no Fault which obliges the Holy See to exercise its Authority, B. 7. Ind. 11. Ep. 65.

The Primacy of the Pope gives him no Right to reverse the ancient Canons, nor the Priviledges and Rights of other Bishops, B. 2. Ep. 37. These following are his own words, Absit ut Statuta Majorum, à Consacerdotibus meis in qualibet Ecclesia infringam, quia mihi injuriam facio, si fratrum meorum jura perturbo. De Ecclesiasticis vero Privilegiis, hoc vestra fraternitas, post habita dubitatione, teneat, quia sicut nostra defendimus, ita singulis quibusque Ecclesiis, sua jura servamus: i. e. God forbid that I should infringe the Decrees of our Ancestors made by our Fellow-Bishops in any Church, for I do my self an Injury if I disturb the Rights of my Brethren: And as to Ecclesiastical Priviledges you may firm∣ly believe, Brother, without the least doubt, that as we defend our own, so we reserve to every Church their own Rights.

The Bishops of Rome refus'd to take upon them the Title of Universal Patriarch of the Church, which was given them by the Council of Chalcedon, lest they should seem to encroach upon the Rights of other Bishops, B. 4. Ep. 32. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 30.

St. Gregory wrote to Eulogius the Patriarch of Alexandria, who had acquainted him with what he had commanded him; that he should not any more use this term of Commanding, for he knew (says Gregory to him) what it meant, and what was meant by his Brethren, that they were his Brethren by their Dignity, and his Fathers by their merit, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 30.

Of the Apostolick Sees.

EUlogius Patriarch of Alexandria, had written many things to St. Gregory in favour of the See of St. Peter; St. Gregory observes to him in his Answer, that they were the more grateful to him, because they were written by one, who sits also in the Chair of St. Peter himself, and that he had done an Honour to himself, by endeavouring to do one to the See of Rome: That he should know, that the Church was solidly founded upon the Firmness of the Prince of the Apostles, from whence he had his Name of Peter, and that to him, the Truth it self said, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; to whom he also said, when you are Converted, strengthen your Brethren: with∣out forgetting these other words, Simon, Son of Jona, lovest thou me? feed my sheep: That upon this account, though there were many Apostles, yet there was but one See of the Prince of the Apostles, which was raised in Authority above the rest, because of the Primacy which he founded: That this See is in three places, at Rome, the place where he finish'd his Course; at Alexandria, whether he sent his Evangelist St. Mark to supply the place; and at Anti∣och, where he continued seven years; but that these three Sees are but one See, which belongs to

St. Peter, on which three Bishops now sit, which are in effect but one, in him who pray'd, That they may be one, as I am in the Father, and the Father in me, B. 6. Ep. 37.

The Form of Ecclesiastical Decisions.

HEre follow the principal Rules observ'd by St. Gregory in Ecclesiastical Decisions.

He Judg'd in the first place the Bishops of Italy, Sicily, and the Neighbouring Isles, which im∣mediately depended upon Rome as their Metropolis; as for Example, he cites Januarius Bishop of Calaris, to Rome, to come and purge himself of the Accusation charged upon him, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 36.

He causes the Bishop of Syracusa to come to Rome, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 12.

He cites Maximus Bishop of Salone, B. 5. Ep. 3, & 25.

Having depos'd the Bishop of Naples, he writes to the Clergy and People of that City to choose another Bishop in his room, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 3.

He requires his * 1.92 Warden in Sicily to send to Rome the Bishop of Messina, and his Accusers, B. 11. Ep. 32 & 33.

The Bishops of the Vicariate of Rome were oblig'd to come every year to his Synod: As to those of Sicily, they came thither once in three years, and St. Gregory assures them, that he will be satisfied if they come but once in five years, B. 6. Ep. 19.

Yet to facilitate the dispatch of Affairs, he makes Maximian Bishop of Syracuse, his Legat into Si∣cily, to whom he gives Power to judge of smaller Affairs, on condition that he should reserve to him such as were of greater Consequence. He Commissions the Bishop of Syracuse, and four other Bi∣shops, to judge the Cause of Mellitus Bishop of the Isle of Malta, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 63. As to the o∣ther Bishops of the West, who did not depend upon his Metropolis, he would have them judged by a Synod of the Province, without an Appeal to the Holy See. He affirms, that a Bishop of Afric should be judg'd by a Synod held in Afric, B. 1. Ep. 82. He remits Paulinus of Tegesta, to the Judg∣ment of Columbus, B. 10. Ep. 32.

He affirms, That a Bishop ought never to be Depos'd till his Cause has been first heard in a Synod, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 8 & 9. In case of an Appeal, or where recourse is had to the Holy See, he com∣monly commissions Judges upon the place: whereof here follow some Instances.

Florentius Bishop of Epidaurus, which is now Ragousa, had been condemn'd by his Metropolitan, without being judg'd or convicted in any Synod; but St. Gregory declares that his Deposition ought not to take place, but the Cause ought to be re-heard and decided in a Council. He commissions Antonius to be present at this Decision, B. 1. Ind. 4. Ep. 8 & 9.

He remits to Columbus Bishop of Numidia, the Judgment of two Bishops of Afric, B. 5. Ep. 36. B. 10 Ep. 32.

He Commissions one of his Wardens at Rome, to draw up a Process and Judge the Bishop of Ma∣laga, B. 11. Ep. 52 & 53.

The Judgment of this Deacon is related in the Letter 55, wherein he declares by virtue of his Commission, that Januarius Bishop of Malaga was unjustly forc'd away: He nulls all that had been done against him, altho it was null in it self: He ordains, that the other Bishops who were guilty of this bold Invasion of another's Right, shall be shut up in a Monastery, to do Penance there; that he who was Ordain'd in the room of Januarius, shall remain depriv'd of the Priesthood, and all Ec∣clesiastical Orders, and that Januarius shall re-enter upon the Possession of his Bishoprick. This Dea∣con pronounc'd the Sentence, in the presence of the four Gospels, and according to the Memorial of the Imperial Laws, about the Decisions of Bishops.

St. Gregory remits to the Bishop of Vienna the Judgment of an Abbot of Cesena, who was forsaken by his Bishop, B. 12. Ep. 1.

He Commissions Sigibert Bishop of Autun, to determine the Differences between the Bishop of Turin and Tarentasia about the Parishes of their Diocese, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 120 & 121.

He pretends also to have a Right of Reviewing the Causes which were decided in the East, even after an Appeal.

The Affair of Hadrian Bishop of Thebes in Thessaly is too remarkable to be pass'd over here in si∣lence. This Bishop had been condemn'd by the Bishop of Larissa, upon a Civil Affair, and he had brought his Appeal; but having recourse to the Emperors, he was sent back to be judg'd before the Bishop of Corinth; yet he was afterward forc'd to acquiesce in the Judgment of the Bishop of Larissa. Some time after, two Deacons who had been depos'd, one for his Uncleanness, and the other for Embezelling the Revenues of the Church, accus'd Hadrian of suffering a Deacon of an ill Life, altho he knew of his Disorders, and of suffering Infants to die without Baptism. The Bishop

of Larissa condemn'd him now for a Criminal Affair as he had done before for a Civil Matter; be appealed from this Sentence; the Emperors caused the Informations to be communicated to Honora∣tus a Deacon, who found none of these things true which they charged upon Hadrian. Yet his Cause was remitted to the Metropolitan of the first Justinienna, Primat of Illyria, and Vicar of the Holy See. This Bishop, without ex•…•…ing the Cause judicially, confirm'd the Sentence of the Bishop of Larissa upon the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of some Witnesses, who declar'd that they had heard from the Deacon Demetrius the things which were charg'd upon Hadrian, altho this Deacon deny'd it so stifly that he could not be made to confess it by putting him to the Torture. Hadrian had recourse to St. Gregory, who null'd the proceedings at Larissa and those of the Bishop of the first 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as contrary to the Laws and the Canons, and as null in themselves, even tho there had not been any Appeal. He cuts off the Bishop of Justin•…•… from Com•…•… for thirty days, threatens to Excommuni∣cate him of Larissa, takes from him all his Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Thebes, orders him to restore the Effects of the Church of Thebes, and remits the Cause in his own right only to his Resi∣dents at Constantinople, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 6. & 7.

He believed also that the Holy See could call Causes of great Consequence to Rome, and judge them. Thus he judged and acquirred at Rome John a Priest of Chalcedon who was accused of He∣resie, and condemned by the Bishop of Constantinople▪ B. 5. Ep. 15 & 16. And he alledges this Ex∣ample to prove to the Bishop of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 th•…•… he could examin and judge at Rome the Cause of Clau∣dus the Abbot, who had a Difference with the Church of Ravenna, B 5. Ep. 24. He acquits also a Priest of Isauria, who was accused of Heresie, B. 5. Ep 64. But he rarely made use of his Jurisdi∣ction. And the Metropolitans 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it with him. Paul a Bishop of Afric came to Rome to purge himself: Witnesses are sent thither who are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 insufficient. Paul desires to be sent back to Con∣stantinople, the Pope allows him to go thither with two Bishops, B. 6. Ep. 2.

As to the ordinary Causes between the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Clergy of the Bishopricks depending upon the Me∣tropolis of Rome, he left them to the Decision of the Bishops, and would not have his Wardens to meddle in them, nor to diminish the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary. For, says he, if we do not pre∣serve the Jurisdiction of each Bishop, we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Order of the Church which we should main∣tain. Nam si unicuique Epise•…•… sua jurisdictio non 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quid aliu•• agitur, nisi ut per nos, per quos Ecclesiasticus ordo custo•…•… debuit, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, B. 9. Ep. 32. Yet he punish'd a Priest of a Parish in the Diocese of another Bishop, B. 2. Ep. 16.

As to the Informations about the Disorders committed in the Person of a Bishop, he observes that they should be made by a Clergy-man together with the Judge, B. 2 Ind. 11. Ep. 1. He would not have a Bishop detained a long time in Prison. He says that he must be Deposed if he be guilty, or set at Liberty if he be innocent, B. 1. Ep. 32. The Custom for a Man to purge himself by Oath when there was no Conviction of him, was in use in the time of St. Gregory, which he approves and makes use of, B. 2. Ep. 23. B. 9. Ep. 12.

Against the Title of Universal Patriarch.

ST. Gregory does not only oppose this Title in the Patriarch of Constantinople, but he maintains also that it cannot agree to any other Bishop, and that the Bishop of Rome neither ought nor can assume it. John the younger Patriarch of Constantinople, had taken upon him this Title in a Coun∣cil held in 586, in the time of Pope Pelagius. which oblig'd this Pope to null the Acts of this Coun∣cil. St. Gregory wrote of it also to this Patriarch; but this made no impression on him, and John would not abandon this fine Title, B. 4. Ep. 36. St. Gregory address'd himself to the Emperor Mau∣ritius, and exhorted him earnestly to employ his Authority for redressing this Abuse, and to force him who assumed this Title to quit it. He remonstrates to him in his Letter, That although Jesus Christ had committed to St. Peter the Care of all his Church, yet he was not called Universal Apostle: That the Title of Universal Bishop is against the Rules of the Gospel, and the Appointment of the Canons; that there cannot be an Universal Bishop, but the Authority of all the other will be de∣stroy'd or diminish'd: That if the Bishop of Constantinople were Universal Bishop, and it should happen that he should fall into Heresie, it might be said, that the Universal Church was fall'n into destruction: That the Council of Chalcedon had offer'd this Title to St. Leo, but neither he nor his Successors would accept it, lest by giving something peculiar to one Bishop only, they should take a∣way the Rights which belong to all the Bishops: That it belongs to the Emperor, to reduce by his Authority him who despises the Canons, and does injury to the Universal Church by assuming this singular Name, B. 4. Ep. 32. These Remonstrances had no effect; for the Emperor would not meddle in this Affair, and had even authorized John the younger, and therefore the Pope com∣plain'd of it to the Empress, Ep. 34. of the same Book. He wrote also to other Patriarchs, who were, it seems, concern'd to oppose this new Title: But they did not take the Matter so heinously as St. Gregory, and suffer'd the Patriarch of Constantinople to enjoy this Title, which did them no preju∣dice. Nay, Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch, had the boldness to remonstrate to St. Gregory, that he must not be angry for a Matter of so little consequence: But St. Gregory gave him to understand,

that he did not take the Matter to be so Cyriacus succeeding to John in the See of Constantinople, continued to assume the same Title, yet he wrote to St. Gregory, immediately after his Promotion. This Pope would not refuse his Letter; but he gave him notice that he should quit that Ambitious Title of Universal Patriarch, if he would prevent a Rupture between them, and wrote to the Em∣peror, that his Legat should not Communicate with Cyriacus till he had parted with this vain Title, B. 6. Ep. 4. & 5. 23, 24, 25, 28, 30 & 31. He exhorts the Bishop of Thessalonica not to approve this Title, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 70. Yet Cyriacus would not quit it, and St. Gregory was also oblig'd to write to him about the end of his Pontificat, B. 11. Ep. 43.

Of the Rights and Authority of the Metropolitans.

ST. Gregory desires, that in Afric a Primate should be chosen, rather with respect to his Merit then the Dignity of the See, and that he should recide in a City, B. 1. Ep. 72. Yet he permits the Bishops of Numidia to observe their ancient Customs, even as to the appointing of Primates, pro∣vided notwithstanding, that they suffer none who have been Donatists to ascend to that Dignity, B. 11. Ep. 75.

St. Gregory in naming his Deputies, preserves the Rights of Metropolitans: Singulis quibusaue Me∣tropolitis, secundum priscam consuetudinem, proprio bonore servato, B. 4. Ep. 50. i. e. Saving to each Me∣tropolitan, his peculiar honour, according to ancient Custom.

About the Pallium.

ST. Gregory sent the Pallium to many Bishops.

To Anastasius of Antioch, B. 1. Ep. 27.

To him of Ravenna, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 77. B. 4. Ep. 54.

To him of Salonae B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 130. He threatens to deprive him of it, B. 2. Ep. 14.

To Leander Bishop of Sevil, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 126.

To Siagrius of Autun, B. 7. Ind. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ep. 5. Ind. 2. Ep. 113.

To the Bishop of Milan, B. 3. Ep. 1.

To the Bishop of Messina, B. 5. Ep. 8.

To the Bishop of Arles, B. 4. Ep. 50.

To the Bishop of Corinth, B. 4. Ep. 55.

The Form of sending the Pallium, B. 5. Ep. 8.

He had a Difference with the Bishop of Ravenna, about the time wherein he should wear it: This Bishop pretended that he ought to put it on in the Vestry, in the presence of all the Clergy, and wear it in Procession; but the Pope would not have him to put it on till after the Clergy were gone forth, and that he should wear it in other places besides in the Church and at the Altar, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 53 & 55. Yet he permits him to wear it in some Processions, B. 4. Ep. 11 & 15. But he being not satisfied with this, had a mind to wear it whenever he pleas'd at the Ceremonies; and therefore St. Gregory informs him by his Notary Carlonus, after what manner it should be us'd, B. 5. Ep. 33.

He gives it to the Bishop of Arles, on Condition that he should wear it only at the Altar, B. 3.

He would not give it to Desiderius, because he could not prove, as he had affirm'd, that his Church had formerly enjoy'd Apostolical Priviledges, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 117.

He would not give it to the Bishop of Autun, until it had been desir'd for him in the Queen's Name, and the Bishops and the Emperor had consented to it, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 5. There he ob∣serves, That the Custom is to give it only to Bishops of noted Merit, who desire it importunately.

About the Title of Cardinal.

THe Title and Name of Cardinal with St. Gregory, signifies nothing but what is Titular. As for instance, He permits the People of Naples to make Bishop Paul, who was their Deputy, Cardinal of their Church, if they thought fit, B. 2. Ep. 6 & 7. Ib. Ep. 9. He speaks of a Presbyter Cardinal in an Oratory. He recommends the Church of Calaria, to the Bishop of Urbinum, during the ab∣sence and sickness of its Bishop, and prays him to take care of it, as he was the proper and Cardinal Bishop, Cardinalem & proprium, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 24 & 25. He makes the Bishops of ruin'd Churches, Cardinal Bishops of other Churches, B. 1. Ep. 77. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 25 & 26. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 13 & 14. A Deacon who had not been made Cardinal, ought to come after those who had been Ordain'd

Cardinals, altho they were younger then he, B. 1. Ep. 79. i. e. A Deacon Ordain'd without a Ti∣tle, has not the place, until the day whereon he is made Titular. A Presbyter Cardinal of a Church of Populania in Tuscany is a Titular Priest of that Church, B. 1. Ep. 15.

Of the Pope's Deputies.

ST. Gregory grants to Vigilius Bishop of Arles, by making him his Vicar in Gaul, the Right of giving Letters to Bishops who have a Journey to make out of their own Country to Judge of difficult Causes with twelve Bishops, to Call together the Bishops of the Country wherein he is Vi∣car, B. 4. Ep. 50 & 52.

The Pope's Legats.

THe Holy See sent only two Deacons to the Emperor, B. 11. Ep. 45. St. Gregory made choice of such as might be most acceptable to him, B. 1. Ep. 2. B. 9. Ep. 64. He recommends them by his Letters, B. 5. Ep. 5 & 6. B. 11. Ep. 43. He would have them frequently converse with pious Persons, to abolish the Impressions which Secular Affairs might make upon them.

Of the Functions of Arch-deacons, Deacons, Sub-deacons, and other Clergy-men.

THe Officers of Bishops ought to be Clergy-men, B. 4. Ep. 4. An Arch-deacon is answerable for the Moveables of the Church, B. 1. Ep. 10. The Title of Arch-deacon was so considerable, that a Bishop having a design to be reveng'd upon an Arch-deacon, would Ordain a Priest against his Mind, on purpose to turn him out of his place. St. Gregory concern'd himself against this Bi∣shop, and threatned to deprive him of the Pallium, and depose him, if he did not restore the Arch-deacon, B. 1. Ep. 19. B. 2. Ep. 14, 15, 17, 37.

St. Gregory grants to an Arch-deacon of Gap the use of the * 1.93 Dalmatica, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 112.

St. Gregory in a Synod forbids to put the Deacons upon singing in the Church: They should be employ'd in the Service of the Altar, and the Distribution of Alms. The Sub-deacons should sing the Psalms and read the Lessons, and the Inferior Orders should not be employ'd in these Functions but in case of necessity, B. 4. Ep. 44.

The Vidame was an Officer who took care of the Revenues of the Bishop of Rome, B. 1. Ep. 11. There is frequent mention in the Epistles of St. Gregory, of the Defensores, i. e. Wardens, who were the Clerks that took care of the Patrimony of the Roman Church.

Of the Use of Ecclesiastical Revenues.

THe Revenues of Churches ought to be divided into four Parts, whereof one is for the Cler∣gy, and another for the Poor; and the two other parts ought to be subdivided into three, where∣of one shall be for the maintenance of the Church, the other for the Bishop, and the last for the wants of particular Persons, B. 4. Ep. 42.

That part which is for the Poor ought to be taken out of the new Purchases, as well as out of the old Possessions, B. 3. Ep. 11. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 8. B. 11. Ep. 49. That part which is for the Clergy ought to be distributed indifferently among them, B. 7. Ind. 10. Ep. 8.

The Letter 51 of B. 8. contains many Articles of an Agreement made between the Clergy of Panormum and their Bishop, which the Pope confirms, and in consequence thereof, order'd the Bishop, first. To distribute a full fourth part of the Revenues of his Church among all the Clergy, propor∣tionable to their Merit, Office, and the Labour of each. Secondly, To give them the fourth part of the Offerings of the Faithful, whether they be in Money, or other Presents. Thirdly, To detain only the Remainder of the Moveables for himself, and to unite all the unmoveable Purchases to the Pos∣sessions of the Church. Fourthly, To Commission a Receiver of the Revenues with the Consent of the Elders and the Clergy, Seniorum & Cleri, who shall give an Accompt every year, that all occa∣sion

of suspicion may be cut off. Fifthly, To permit the Clergy to take up their Provision of Wine at a reasonable price upon the Credit of the Church. Sixthly, To take care to remove ill-gotten Goods, and to use only honest ways of getting. Lastly, He exhorts him not to believe lightly what shall be told him against his Clergy, not to proceed against them with Passion, but only by Canoni∣cal ways.

The Bishop cannot by Testament dispose of the Possessions of the Church, nor of the Purchases made while he was Bishop, B. 5. Ep. 1.

The Revenues of the Church ought to be employ'd for the Assistance of the Poor, without re∣serving any thing for the future by a dangerous Precaution, B. 8. Ep. 20.

In the extream necessity of the Poor, the sacred Vessels, and that which serves for Ministring in holy Things, ought to be sold, but all the ready Money must be first disburs'd, B. 6. Ep. 13, 35, 66.

The Rights or the Church must be maintain'd, the Possessions which belong to it must be defend∣ed and recover'd; but this must not be done with all the Rigor that's possible: 'Twere even better to lose something, and abandon a part of the Revenues of the Church, then to be the Cause of Ruin to the Poor, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 23. when there is room for doubting, whether the Goods belong to the Church, or no, 'tis best to yield.

The Governors of Hospitals give an account of their Revenues to the Bishop, B. 3. Ep. 24.

It belongs to the Bishop to take care of these Revenues, B. 3. Ep. 24. B. 8. Ep. 20. When he can∣not do it by himself he must appoint a Steward for it, B. 11. Ep. 57.

Of the Patrimony of St. Peter.

IN the time of St. Gregory the Church of Rome had many Possessions in Lands, not only in Italy and Sicily, but also in France, in Dalmatia, in Illyricum, &c. These Possessions were call'd The Patrimony of St. Peter: they were managed and administred by the Persons call'd Defensores, i. e. Wardens, who gave an account of them. St. Gregory employ'd the Revenues of these Patrimonies in Works of Piety: he desir'd that his Rights might not be exacted with Rigor, nor any new Taxes imposed. His Wardens had their Prerogatives and Jurisdictions. In Gaul they inspected the Chap∣pels and Abbies. These things may be prov'd by many Letters. See B. 1. Ep. 1, 2, 23, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 58. B. 2. Ep. 1. Ind. 10, 17. Ind. 11. Ep. 17, 33. B. 5. Ep. 5, 6, 10. B. 9. Ep. 65. In this last he speaks of the Right of inspecting Chappels and Abbies.

Of the Celibacy of Clergy-men.

ST. Gregory took it ill that the Sub-deacons of Sicily were oblig'd to abstain from their Wives, ac∣cording to the Custom of the Church of Rome. This Law appear'd to him harsh and unreasona∣ble, because they found not Continence establish'd by any Law for them, and they were not oblig'd to keep it before they were Ordain'd, he fear'd lest something worse should happen if this yoke were impos'd upon them. He orders that none shall be Ordain'd for the future who do not promise to live in Continence. He declares that those who have observ'd the Prohibitions made three years ago deserve to be commended; but he would not have those Deposed who had broken them, altho he forbids to promote them to Holy Orders.

He declares in Letter 34 of Book 3. That he will put in Execution the Order of the Pope his Pre∣decessor, about the Continence of the Sub-deacons, and that those who are married shall be oblig'd to abstain from it, or else to forsake the Service of the Altar. He would not have the Wives pu∣nish'd of those who desir'd rather to quit the Service then renounce them, nor the Women hindred from marrying again after their death. He orders that for the future no Sub-deacon shall be made who is not oblig'd before hand to observe Celibacy.

He enjoyns the Bishop of Tarentum who had a Concubine, voluntarily to resign the Bishoprick, and to do a reasonable Penance, if he had kept Company with her since he was a Bishop, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 4.

He forbade Clergy-men very severely to keep strange Women in their Houses, and also exhorted them not to keep those which are excepted by the Canons, B. 1. Ep. 50. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 39. B. 3. Ep. 26. B. 11. Ep. 42 & 43.

He implores the Authority of the Prince against disorderly Clergy-men who kept Women in their Houses, B. 9. Ep. 64.

He forbids to Ordain a Deacon Bishop who had a very young Daughter, by whose Age it mani∣festly appeared that he had not long observ'd Continence, B. 8. Ep. 11.

Against Simony.

ST. Gregory forbids to take any thing for Ordinations, for Marriages, and for admission into a Religions House, or for any Ecclesiastical Office, B. 3. Ep. 24. B. 4. Ep. 44, 55, 56. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 110. Or even for Burial, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 4. except what the Kinsmen or Heirs offer volun∣tarily for the Light, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 56.

He forbids the Bishops of Sicily to take any thing above the usual Rate for the Confirmation of Infants, pro confirmandis Infantibus, B. 11. Ep. 22. nor for the Funeral, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 4.

He was so afraid left it should be thought that he exacted any thing from the Suffragan Bishops, that he would not suffer the Churches to send him the Annual Presents according to Custom, B. 1. Ep. 64.

Simony was very common in his time in the East and in Greece, B. 5. Ep. 11. B. 4. Ep. 55. B. 9. Ep. 40. B. 11. Ep. 48. In Sicily, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 4, 56. In Afric, B. 10. Ep. 32. But chiefly in the Gauls, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 111, & 114, 115. B. 9. Ep. 49, 50, 51. and the following Letters. He wrote earnestly to Bishops and Kings, that they would put a stop to this Disorder, by forbidding it, Ibid.

Of the Submission due to Princes.

ST. Gregory gives proof of his Submission to the Orders of the Emperor, in Ep. 62. of Ind. 11. B. 2. Mauritius had directed to him a Law which contain'd three Articles. By the first it was forbid∣den to receive those into the Clergy who were engaged in any Publick Administration. St. Gregory found no fault with this Article. But as to the second, wherein they were forbidden to enter into a Monastery, he finds it unreasonable, because the Monastery may discharge the Debts of these Persons and make up their Accompts; besides that it's to be presum'd that one who desires sincerely to be con∣verted, will take order with his Affairs. Neither does he approve the third Head which forbids those which had been design'd for the Militia, to enter into a Monastery. He makes his Remonstrance with a great deal of respect, and declares to the Emperor that he did not suffer this Law to be pub∣lish'd, and that herein he had done his duty as a Subject and as a Bishop; as a Subject in obeying his Prince, as a Bishop in making his most humble Remonstance. Utrobique quod debui exolvi, & Im∣peratori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo, quod sensi minime tacui.

When Phocas invaded the Empire, St. Gregory did not oppose his Exaltation; but on the contrary he acknowledg'd and even commended him, B. 11. Ep. 45. See also the Memorial which is at the be∣ginning of the same Book.

In Ep. 127. of Ind. 2. B. 7. * 1.94 He commends the King Recaredus for bringing back his Arian Subjects to the Church, and represents to him the Reward he was to expect for presenting so many Souls to God. He declares to him that he looks upon him in this respect as much above himself: he praises him also for not recalling the Order he had made against the Jews. After he has given him these Commendations, he exhorts him to be circumspect in his behaviour, and recommends to him Humility, Purity, and Moderation.

Notwithstanding this he did not forbear to write to Princes with boldness, and to make Chri∣stian Remonstrances unto them. He exhorts Phocas to relieve the People, B. 11. Ep. 38. He ad∣monishes Kings to remember that they are Men like others, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 62. He represents to them that it was not enough to be a King, but the chief business was to be Pious, B. 5. Ep. 5 & 6. He de∣clares to them that they were oblig'd to protect the Church and the Faith, B. 2. Ind. 2. Ep. 126. B. 3. Ep. 7, 23. B. 4. Ep. 54. B. 5: Ep. 63. B. 9. Ep. 57, 64. He terrified them by representing to them that the day of Judgment was near at hand, B. 9. Ep. 60. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 61. and by threatning them with the Plagues of God, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 65.

Of Ecclesiastical Moderation.

ST. Gregory declares in Letter 1. of Book 7. That he always abhor'd the ways of Cruelty that were us'd for planting Religion; that, if he had pleas'd, he could have destroy'd the whole Na∣tion of the Lombards, but that it was not the Spirit of the Church.

He desires that Justice and Equity may be observ'd towards the Jews, as well as among Christians, and that no injury may be done unto them. Here follow the Examples of his Moderation. He wrote to Vigilius of Arles, and Theodorus Bishop of Marseilles, That the Jews ought not to be com∣pell'd to be baptiz'd, lest the sacred Fonts of Regeneration to a Divine Life by Baptism, should be to them the occasion of a second Death more deadly then the first, B. 1. Ep. 45. He would have them allur'd by Moderation, B. 1. Ep. 11. He does not approve the Zeal of a Jew newly baptiz'd, who on the next day after his Baptism, thought sit to carry an Image of the Virgin, a Cross, and a white Garment in the Synagogue, to endeavour the Conversion of the Jews, and to take from them the Place of their Assembly. He desires that these things may be remov'd out of the Synagogue, and that it may be restor'd to the Jews, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 5.

He blames the Bishop of Terracina, who had hindred the Jews from celebrating their Festivals in the City, and had driven them out of it, appointing them another Place for holding their Assemblies, B. 1. Ep. 34. He orders that the Price of their Synagogues which they had invaded should be resto∣red unto them, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 59.

He complains of John the Younger, That he had suffer'd the Priests of Constantinople to be a∣bus'd, without concerning himself in their Defence: and he adds, that 'tis a thing unheard of to force People by beating them with a stick to receive the Faith: Inaudita est praedicatio, quae verberi∣bus exigit fidem.

He would have Hereticks easily receiv'd, B. 1. Ep. 14. And the better to entice such Idolaters as were lately converted, he permits that the Festival days which were wont to be kept near the Churches, should be observ'd in that Place where they had been accustomed to make their Feasts of Meats offer'd unto Idols, B. 9. Ep. 71.

Of the Duties to which Bishops are obliged.

BIshops are call'd Pastors upon no other account, but because they ought to labour for the good of their Flocks, B. 3. Ep. 35. B. 4. Ep. 8, 35. A Bishop ought to instruct his People by his Dis∣course and by his Example, B. 4. Ep. 52, 55. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 12, 113. B. 12. Ep. 32. B. 10. Ep. 17. B. 11. Ep. 10. He ought to shun the Pomps and Vanities of this World, and not to place his Ho∣nour in External Magnificence, but in the Excellency of his Office. He ought to be candid, mo∣dest, meek, sincere, patient, &c. B. 4. Ep. 15. He ought to make himself belov'd and fear'd, B. 3. Ep. 1. He must not only be Pious and Spiritual, but he must also be Active and Charitable, B. 5. Ep. 29. He must not apply himself to the gaining of Riches, but of Souls, B. 5. Ep. 29. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 2.

Bishops are oblig'd to make Visitations in their Diocesses, to confirm the Children that are bap∣tiz'd, B. 8. Ep. 46. They ought to entertain their Brethren, when they are driven away or ba∣nish'd, B. 1. Ep. 43.

The Bishop's Officers ought all to be Clergy-men, B. 4. Ep. 44. The Laws of the Emperors a∣bout the Immunities of the Clergy, B. 11. Ep. 56.

St. Gregory would not have Bishops teach Human Learning, because then they must praise Jupi∣ter with the same Mouth wherewith they sing the Praises of Jesus Christ. He says also, That this is not suitable for a pious Lay-man, B. 9. Ep. 48.

The Bishops who go to Court, ought to have Letters of Leave from the Metropolitan, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 62.

Bishops ought to be sober. St. Gregory refutes the Bishop Honoratus, who excus'd the good Cheer that he made by the Examples of the Feasts of the Patriarchs, and the Love-Feasts of the first Chri∣stians, B. 2. Ep. 14 & 37.

The Bishops are oblig'd to Residence, B. 1 Ep. 64. B. 5. Ep. 23. B. 8. Ep. 11. They ought not to go out of their Diocese, for any Business without the leave of the Metropolitans, B. 7. Ep. 8 62. They ought to dwell within the Bounds of their Diocese, and not to invade the Parishes of another Diocese, upon any pretence whatsoever, B. 12. Ep. 2 & 3. They ought not to abandon their Church in the time of Pestilence, B. 8. Ep 4. B. 4. Ep. 2.

Of the Penance of Clergy-men.

ST. Gregory was of the mind, That a Clergy-man being Deposed, who had perform'd the Duties of his Function, ought to be depriv'd of the Communion, and put under Penance all the rest of his Life. Yet he leaves the Bishop at Liberty to grant him Lay-Communion, if he finds him worthy of it after he has finish'd his Penance, B. 4. Ep. 5. Examples of Clergy-men Depos'd and put un∣der Penance in Monasteries, are to be seen, B. 1. Ep. 18, 43. B. 3. Ep. 9. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 28, 40. He threatens a Bishop with it, B. 5. Ep. 23. Clergy-men that are fall'n into Carnal Sin, can never be restor'd, B. 1. Ep. 43. B. 3. Ep. 26.

A Deacon for his Calumnies was condemn'd to be Depos'd, whipped and banish'd, B. 9. Ep. 66. Another that had deflowr'd a Maid was shut up in a Monastery, was sentenc'd to Corporal Punish∣ment, B. 2. Ind. 2. Ep. 40.

Of Excommunication.

AGainst those who say that we ought not to fear Excommunications, nor have any regard to them, B. 9. Ep. 39.

St. Gregory declares that Excommunication null, which was pronounced by Laurentius Bishop of Milan against Magnus the Priest, and assures him that he may receive the Communion if he be not guilty of some secret Fault, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 26.

A Bishop who had pronounc'd a hasty Sentence of Excommunication against an Abbot, is reprov'd by St. Gregory, B. 12. Ep. 26, 30. We must not Excommunicate any for slight Causes, or in Passion, B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 34. B. 12. Ep. 26.

There ought to be three Admonitions before Excommunication, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 54.

He who is Excommunicated by his Superior, ought not to be admitted to the Communion, until he is absolv'd, B. 7. Ind. 2 Ep. 36.

Rules concerning the Monks.

ST. Gregory having been a Monk himself, 'tis no wonder that he took a particular care of the Monks during his Pontificat.

He would have no Person receiv'd into the Monasteries before the Age of Eighteen, B. 1. Ep. 41.

Before any one becomes a Profess'd Monk, by taking upon him the Monastical Habit, he must first be try'd in a Lay-habit, and serve as a Probationer for two years, B. 4. Ep. 44. B. 8. Ep. 23.

A Monk who abandons his Habit and Profession, should be shut up. St. Gregory would grant no Dispensation in this Case, B. 12. Ep. 20. B. 1. Ep. 33, 40.

Vagabond Monks ought not to be suffer'd, B. 1. Ep. 4. B. 6. Ep. 32. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 36.

Lay-men ought not to be admitted to stay in Monasteries, B. 4. Ep. 1.

The Clergy who have taken upon them the Monastical Habit, cannot have a place among the Clergy if they quit the Monastical Life, at least unless they be Ordain'd Priests by their Bishops, B. 1. Ep. 40.

St. Gregory would not have those chosen for Abbots who are Priests, Deacons, or Clerks of Churches. Neither would he have those who are of the Clergy made Monks, because the Ecclesi∣astical Order is perfectly different from the Monastical Life, B. 3. Ep. 11. B. 4. Ep. 8.

But notwithstanding this, some Abbots and Monks were Priests; for St. Gregory writes to many Abbots that were Priests, but they were Ordain'd in their Convention. As for example, St. Gregory enjoyns the Bishop of Panormum to Ordain him Priest whom the Monks should choose to say Mess in their House, B. 5. Ep. 41. Sometimes also in a case of Necessity the Bishop could take the Monks in the Monastery of his Diocese, and advance them to the Priesthood, that he might imploy them in his own Church, B. 5. Ep. 27. But the design of the Church was, that those who were of the Cler∣gy, and destined for the Service of the Church, should not be Monks, and that the Monks should not be of the Clergy, because the Monks are oblig'd to Retirement, which is disturbed by the Ser∣vice which the Clergy are bound to do to the Church. For this reason St. Gregory would not have the Bishops come to celebrate Publick Messes in the Monasteries, B. 5. Ep. 46. But thinks it sufficient

that they send thither a Priest, if they would have Messes said there, Ibid. & B. 3. Ep. 18.

The Monks had not power to make a Will. St. Gregory allows it to one whom he had made an Abbot against his will. This Concession is in B. 9. Ep. 22. The date of the years of Jesus Christ which might make the Truth of it questionable, is not found in the ancient Manuscripts.

A Monk who cannot labour, ought to be maintained at the expence of his Family, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 1.

A Monk ought not to go forth alone, because it is to be presum'd that he who walketh without a Witness lives not well: Qui fine teste ambulat non recte vivit, B. 10. Ep. 22.

A Monk ought to have nothing which may be call'd his own Propriety, B. 1. Ep. 40. B. 5. Ep. 12. B. 10. Ep. 22.

Of an Abbot.

HE could not be chosen for an Abbot who had offended against Chastity, or had been put under Penance: wherefore St. Gregory makes void the Election of an Abbot who confess'd that he had committed a sin of Uncleanness, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 23.

The Abbot, as well as the other Monks, is forbidden to go out of the Monastery: he ought to have a Proctor for Civil Affairs, and to give himself wholly to Prayer and Reading, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 3. B. 1. Ep. 47. He who being barely a Monk goes forth without a Companion, is not worthy to be chosen Abbot, B. 10. Ep. 22.

The Abbot must choose for a Superior him who is immediately next to himself if he be worthy of it, if not, he ought to take one of the Brethren who were last admitted, that so all of them may be en∣courag'd to do well, when they shall see that there is not so great regard had to Age as to merit, B. 6. Ep. 10.

The Disorders of a Monastery do often proceed from the bad Conduct of a Superior, who is ei∣ther too mild or too passionate, B. 9. Ep. 42.

An Abbot ought to have the Qualifications which are suitable to his Dignity, B. 6. Ep. 18. He ought to reform his Monks, B. 6. Ep. 29.

Bishops ought not to support the Monks who are disobedient to their Abbots, B. 6. Ep. 32.

A Stranger ought not to be chosen for Abbot, if there be any in the Monastery fit for the Office, B. 8. Ind. 1. Ep. 18.

The Abbot ought always to have the first place in the Monastery, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 18.

The Monks of one Monastery ought not to be sent to reform those of another, nor to Ordain them Clergy-men without the Consent of the Abbot; yet if he will not send some to reform neigh∣bouring Monasteries, the Bishops may oblige him to do it, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 18. It belongs to the Abbot to make an Inventory of the Goods of Monasteries, Ibid.

Of the Exemption of Monasteries.

ALthough St. Gregory always subjected the Monks to the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Bishop, yet he granted them some Priviledges, which neither tended to subvert the Order of the Church, nor to exempt them from Episcopal Jurisdiction, but only to procure them more Repose.

He exempted the Monastery of Ariminum from the Visitation of the Bishop after the Death of the Abbot, and from the Celebration of Publick Messes; but he left to the Bishop the Right of Ordain∣ing him Abbot whom the Monks should choose, B. 4. Ep. 41 & 43. in Ep. 12. of B. 6. He grants the Abbess of the Monastery of Nuns at Marseilles, which is said to be consecrated in honour of St. Cas∣sianus, the following Priviledges; That after the Death of the Abbess, no Abbess that is a Stranger shall be set over them, but she whom the Nuns shall choose. 2. That the Abbess shall have the Ad∣ministration of the Revenue of the Abby, and neither the Bishop nor any other Person shall meddle with it. 3. That the Bishop shall Celebrate Divine Service there on the day of its Dedication, and that his Chair shall not continue there the rest of the time; but on other days Divine Service shall be perform'd there by the Priest whom the Bishop shall send thither. 4. That the Bishop in Person shall take Cognizance of the Faults of the Abbess, or the other Nuns.

In B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 116. which is address'd to the Bishop of Arles, he confirms the Priviledges granted by the Holy See to a Monastery of Monks at Arles without specifying them.

He says in Ep. 12. of B. 1. That the Bishop ought not to hinder the saying of Messes, and burying the Dead in Monasteries.

He forbids Bishops to be burdensome to Monks, or to exact any thing of them, B. 5. Ep. 28. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 18, 33.

He forbids Priests and Secular Clergy-men to trouble them, B. 5. Ep. 28. B. 6. Ep. 40. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 18.

None but the Bishop has any Jurisdiction over the Monks.

Of the Uniting of Monasteries.

ST. Gregory did often Unite a Monastery which was abandon'd, to another Monastery, or a Church which was relinquish'd to a Monastery; but always on condition that the Service should be said in the Church, or in the Monastery united, at the expence of the Monks. See B. 8. Ep. 39. B. 11. Ep. 4. B. 9. Ep. 67, 68.

Rules for the Monasteries of Nuns.

ST. Gregory had a very particular Care of the Nuns, B. 3. Ep. 9. He would not permit any Mo∣nasteries of Nuns to be founded unless a sufficient Revenue were secured for them, B. 8. Ep. 63. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 6. He forbids them to be built near the Monasteries of Men, B. 9. Ep. 20. Wo∣men ought not to lodge in the Monasteries of Men, B. 8. Ep. 21, 22. The Nuns ought not to go forth, even for their Affairs, B. 3. Ep. 9. He forbids most strictly to choose young Abbesses, B. 3. Ep. 11. An Abbess ought to be chosen out of the Nuns of the Monastery, B. 6. Ep. 12. The Bishop ought to confirm the Election of the Abbess, and instal her, B. 6. Ep. 12. The Abbess has Right to Admister the Goods of the Monastery, B. 6. Ep. 12. In the Monasteries in Nuns there ought to be an Oratory; they ought to be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Bishop, they ought not to go forth. He that takes care of their Affairs ought to be an•…•…ent, and of a good Life, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 59. B. 3. Ep. 9. B. 6. Ep. 12. He forbids the Seculars to enter into the Monasteries of Nuns, B. 4. Ep. 4.

St. Gregory reproves the Custom of an Abby, wherein the Abbess did not relinquish her Secular Habit, B. 7. Ep. 2. Ind. 7.

The Consecration of Churches.

WHen St. Gregory commission'd Bishops to Consecrate Oratories and Churches, the chief thing which he recommended to them, was, to take good heed that no dead body were buried in the place. This is to be found in very many places of his Letters. See among others B. 1. Ep. 52. B. 5. Ep. 22. B. 7. Ind. 10. 6. B. 12. Ep. 10, &c. If a Bishop consecrated an Oratory in another Diocese, he declares that what he had done was null and void. B. 11. Ep. 2. The Pagan Temples must be Consecrated with Holy Water, after the Idols are destroy'd, B. 9. Ep. 71. He would not have a new Church consecrated, unless it were endow'd with a sufficient Revenue, for maintaining Divine Service and the Clergy, B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 9. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 6. B. 8. Ep. 63. B. 11. Ep. 18. B. 21. Ep. 10.

The Uniting of Bishopricks.

BIshopricks were United, either because of the small number of the Inhabitants, or because the City of one of the two Bishopricks was ruin'd, B. 1. Ep. 8. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 31 & 35. B. 5. Ep. 9. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 20.

The Translation of Bishops.

WE have no other Examples of them in St. Gregory, but only of such Bishops whose Churches were ruin'd or possess'd by Enemies: And those he permits to be Suffragans, and even Titular Bishops of other Churches, but on Condition, that if their Churches were restor'd, or rebuilt, they should return unto them. See under the Title of Cardinal, and chiefly B. 1. Ep. 77, 79. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 22 & 25. Ind. 11. Ep. 13 & 14. A Translation from the See of a Bishop, B. 2. Ind. 1. Ep. 7.

He gives the Care of a Church to another Bishop, B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 13, 38. Ind. 11. Ep. 13.

He invites the Bishops who had no Bishopricks, to fill those Sees which were vacant, B. 4. Ep. 35.

Rules concerning Christian Slaves.

JEws must not be suffer'd to keep Christian Slaves, altho Christians are oblig'd to pay them the Rents of the Lands which they hire from them, B. 3. Ep. 21. The Law which grants freedom to Jewish Slaves who become Christians, ought to be extended to Pagan Slaves also who are bought by Jews when they become Christians. The Jews have three Months allow'd them, after they are bought, to sell them to a Christian, but after this time, if they continue still with them, they shall be set at Liberty, because 'tis to be presum'd, since they do not sell them in three Months time, that they have a design to keep them for their own Service, B. 5. Ep. 31. This time is also restrain'd to the term of forty days after they shall arrive, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 35. St. Gregory prays the Queen Brune∣hauld to cause forbid the Jews in her Kingdom to keep Christian Slaves, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 115. A Form of Enfranchising them, B. 5. Ep. 12. The Slaves of Jews who take Sanctuary in the Churches, ought not to be restor'd unto them, B. 3. Ep. 9.

Of the Veneration due to Reliques.

ST. Gregory had a great Veneration for Reliques, particularly for those of St. Peter and St. Paul. He refus'd to send some of them to the Empress Constantina, assuring her, that they were not to be approach'd without Terror; that his Predecessor desiring to have some of the Plates touch'd that were near them, was troubled with Visions, and endeavouring to change something at the Sepulchre of St. Laurence, the Monks and Churchwarden who search'd for discovering it, died in ten days time; that the Reliques of the Holy Apostles are never given, but only a piece of Stuff or Linen, which has come near their Bodies, is put into a Box, which is sufficient, and has the same effect. Upon this occasion he relates many Stories: He promises her some of the Filings of the Chain of St. Peter, if the Priest who is appointed for filing them could have any, for this File will not take hold, when those who desire them do not deserve to receive them, B. 3. Ep. 30.

He sent every where some of these Filings enchas'd in Keys. See B. 1. Ep. 25, 29, & 30. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 33, 47. B. 5. Ep. 6. B. 6. Ep. 20, 23, 25. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 34. Ind. 2. Ep. 54. 126. 111. B. 10. Ep. 7. B. 11. Ep. 45. He desires the Reliques of other Saints, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 9. He makes use of Reliques for Consecrating of Churches, B. 5. Ep. 45, 50. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 73, 74, 85. B. 9. Ep. 26.

Of the Use of Images.

SErenus Bishop of Marseilles, having broken and thrown down the Images of his Church, because he observ'd that the People ador'd them, the Pope commends his Zeal that he had hindred him from worshipping them; but he does not take it well that he had broken them, because they serve for Books to those who cannot read, who learn by looking upon them with their eyes, what they cannot discovery by reading of Books. He thinks that he should have let them stand, and only have instructed the People that they should not worship them, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 110.

Serenus receiving this Letter, doubted whether it was St. Gregory's or no. This first assures him that it was his, and speaks to him of this Action in these very words: We praise you, says he to him,

for hindring the People from worshipping of Images, but we rebuke you for breaking of them: Tell me, my Brother, where is the Bishop that ever did th•• like? If nothing else could hinder you from doing it, yet ought you not to have refrain'd for the very singularity of the thing? Should you not have been afraid to make People believe that you thought your self the only wise and prudent person? There is a great deal of difference between worshipping an Image, and learning whom we ought to worship, by the historical Representation of a Picture; for what the Scripture teaches those who can read, the Picture informs such as have eyes to look upon it. The unlearned see in it what they ought to follow, it is a Book to them who know not a Letter; and therefore it is very useful for Barbarians, for whom you ought to have a particu∣lar regard who live amongst them, and not give them offence by an indiscreet Zeal. You ought not to break that which is plac'd in the Churches, not to be worshipped, but to give Instruction to the Ignorant. An∣cient Custom permitted the Pictures of Sacred Histories to be set up in Churches, and your Zeal, if it had been attended with discretion, would never have tore them, nor have occasion'd such a Scandal as has dri∣ven away a part of your People from your Communion. You ought therefore to call them back again, and declare unto them, that Images ought not to be worshipped, that you would not have broken them, but that you saw the People adore them, and that you will permit them to continue for the future, provided they be made use of only for * 1.95 Instruction. Do not forbid Images, but hinder them from being worshipped in any manner whatsoever, and stir up your People to Compunction, and the Adoration of the Holy Trinity, by looking upon the Pictures of Holy Histories. B. 9. Ep. 9.

Of divers Ceremonies of the Church of Rome.

ST. Gregory having appointed certain new Rites in the Church of Rome, was reprov'd for it by some of his Friends, who were disgusted with him for following the Customs of the Church of Constantinople, which he design'd to humble in every thing. They blam'd him chiefly for four things: 1. For saying Hallelujah at Mess on other days besides Whitsunday. 2. That the Sub-deacons were not in their Habit when they perform'd their Office. 3. For singing Kyrie Eleison, Lord have mer∣cy upon us. 4. For ordering the Lord's Prayer to be repeated, immediately after the Canon of the Mess. St. Gregory answers in general, That in none of these Heads he had follow'd the Custom of any other particular Church: That as to the Hallelujah, it came from the Church of Jerusalem, from which St Jerom took it and introduc'd it into the Church of Rome in the time of Pope Damasus: That in obliging the Sub-deacons to minister without their Habit, he had renew'd an ancient Custom, that had been abrogated by a Pope, whose name be knew not; That the Sub-deacons do only wear Linen Albes in the Church of Syracuse, which has receiv'd the Customs of the Roman Church its Mother, and not in the Greek Church; That formerly, Kyrie Eleison, was not wont to be said, and at present it is not said after the manner of the Greeks, who repeat it altogether, whereas at Rome the Clergy begin it, and the People respond to it, and as often as they do, Christe eleison is said; which Practice is not us'd among the Greeks: That in the daily Messes something is omitted of what us'd to be said at Mess, but then Kyrie eleison, and Christe eleison, is sung for a much longer time. As to what concerns the Lord's Prayer, he adds, That it is us'd immediately after the Canon, (post Pre∣cem) because the Apostles had a custom of Consecrating the Sacrifice of Oblation with this Prayer only, (ad ipsam solummodo Orationem) and that it did not appear to him proper, to repeat over the Oblation, a Prayer which had been made by a Civil Lawyer, and not to repeat over the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that Prayer which himself compos'd: And besides, that among the Greeks the Lord's Prayer is pronounc'd by all the People, but at Rome the Priest only says it, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 64.

The Clergy of Rome would not have the Clergy men of the Church of Ravenna to wear the Map∣pulae: St. Gregory grants the use of them to the Deacons only, while they are administring their Of∣fice. The Bishop of Ravenna maintains, that all the Clergy-men ought to wear them, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 55.

A Song was sung in the Church of Ravenna on the Easter Wax-Candle, B. 9. Ep. 28.

St. Gregory ordains Processions or Letanies in the time of War, B. 9. Ep. 45.

He permits Messes to be said in Houses, B. 5. Ep. 42 & 43. The Roman Church had not in his time any other History of the Martyrs but what is in Eusebius. She us'd only a Catalogue of the holy Martyrs for every day of the year, which noted barely the time and place of their Martyrdom, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 3.

He forbids to travel on Sunday, but he does not think it unlawful to bathe on that day, when it is done for health, and not for pleasure, B. 11. Ep. 3.

Of the last Judgment.

WHensoever there happen'd any great Revolutions in the World, the Christians were easily per∣swaded, that the end of the World was approaching: Now St. Gregory had seen some very considerable in his time, and fore-seeing the Ruin of the Roman Empire to be very near at hand, which some thought should never be till the end of the World, he became of that Opinion, that the last Judgment was drawing near. This he affirms in many places of his Letters, and chiefly B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 62. B. 3. Ep. 44. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 128. &c.

Jesus Christ preach'd only to those Souls departed who had believed in him, and led a good Life, B. 6. Ep. 15.

The Letters of St. Gregory against the Defenders of the three Chapters.

ALtho the Church of Rome approv'd the Condemnation of the three Chapters, yet its example was not follow'd by all the Bishops of Italy. Many did not only persist in their Resolution not to Condemn them, but also separated from the Church of Rome and the other Bishops who had receiv'd this Condemnation, or who communicated with the Bishops that had sign'd it. St. Gregory being concern'd to see so many Bishops separate from the Church for a Question of so little Impor∣tance, us'd all his Endeavours to bring them back again by ways of Meekness and Civility. For this end he invited at the beginning of his Pontificat, Severus Bishop of Aquileia, and the other Bi∣shops of Istria who were more obstinate, to come to Rome, there to treat amicably of this Contro∣versie, and promis'd to remove the Scruples they might have about it. But these Bishops refus'd to admit of this Accommodation, and maintain'd their Principle with so much stiffness, that they attri∣buted the Calamities wherewith Italy was then afflicted, to the Condemnation of the three Chapters. The City of Aquileia being afterwards taken by the Lombards, Severus was forc'd to retire to Gra∣dus, from whence he was carried by the Emperor's Order to Ravenna, where he condemn'd the three Chapters: But finding a way to obtain Letters from the Emperor, which forbad to disturb those who defended the three Chapters in the West, he declar'd himself anew for the defence of them, and so agreed the matter with the Lombards, that he was restor'd to Aquileia, where he died. After his death, Agilulphus King of the Lombards, caus'd John to be chosen in his room, who was a Defender of the three Chapters; and the Pope being supported by the Exarch, sent Candidian to Gradus for opposing John.

Many other Bishops of Italy submitted to the Dominion of the Lombards, who would not approve the Condemnation of the three Chapters; Nay, they had so great an Aversion to those who con∣demn'd them, that they separated from the Communion of Constantius Bishop of Milan, whom they suspected to have sign'd this Condemnation; and Theodolinda Queen of the Lombards follow'd their Example. St. Gregory advis'd this Bishop to hold his peace, and say nothing upon this subject, and told him, that he ought not to affirm that he had not sign'd them. He wrote also to Theodolinda many Letters, to perswade her that those who condemned the three Chapters, receiv'd the Council of Chalcedon. He speaks every where as one that was not too much convinc'd, either of the Justice, or Necessity of Condemning the three Chapters, but he would not have any to separate from their Communion who did condemn them.

Against the Donatists.

ST. Gregory stood up against the Donatists of Afric with the same boldness. He hindred a Dona∣tist Bishop from being Primate of Numidia; and chose in his room one Columbus, whom he made his Delegate and Agent in Afric. He order'd him afterwards to hold an Assembly of the Bishops of Numidia, to judge a Bishop who was accus'd of taking money to suffer a Donatist Bishop in his City; and desires that he may be Depos'd if he was convicted of this Crime: For it is very just, says he, that one who hath sold Jesus Christ for money to a Heretick, should henceforth be disabled to dispense the holy Mysteries, B. 2. Ep. 33. On the other hand he exhorted Pantaleon, Governor of Afric, to put a stop to the progress of this Schism, B. 3. Ep. 32, 35. He made an Order, forbidding to admit the Donatists, who were converted, into the Clergy.

The Affair of Maximus of Salonae.

NAtalis Bishop of Salonae dying, who had led a very licentious Life, St. Gregory would have Honoratus chosen in his room, and excluded Maximus, B. 3. Ep. 15. Nevertheless this last was chosen; and tho the Emperor at first scrupled to consent to his Election, yet afterwards he approv'd it. Maximus having received Orders from Court, got himself Ordain'd, and put in Possession of the See of Salonae. St. Gregory understanding this, wrote to Maximus, forbidding him, and all those who had Consecrated him, to perform any part of the Sacerdotal Function, until he was inform'd of the Truth in this case, Whether the Letters of the Emperor upon which he was Ordain'd were true or forg'd. At the same time he cited him to Rome, to give an Ac∣count of his Ordination there. Maximus did not much value this Letter, but caus'd it to be torn in pieces; and asserted that there was nothing to be blam'd in his Ordination, and that he ought to be judged upon the place: The Emperor also acquainted St. Gregory, That he would not have the Ordination of Maximus medled with. But this Order did not shake the Constancy of St. Gregory, who, as himself said upon this occasion, was resolv'd rather to die then suffer the Church of St. Peter to lose its Authority and Rights by his Negligence. Yet he declar'd that he would willingly Sacrifice his own Interest, and admit the Ordination of Maximus, altho it was done against his will: But then he inform'd the Empress, that as to what concern'd the Simony, Sa∣criledge, and the other Crimes whereof Maximus was accused, he could not dispense with using all the Severity of the Laws against him, if he did not come to Rome in a short time to justifie himself. At last, seeing that Maximus continued to Discharge the Sacerdotal Function, and re∣fus'd to come to Rome, he Excommunicated him and all the Bishops who had Ordain'd him, or were engag'd on his side, and even those who should Communicate with them for the future. The Emperor being desirous to put an end to this Contest, order'd Calli••icus the Exarch to ac∣commodate the difference between Maximus and St. Gregory. By his Mediation it was agreed, that Maximus should transport himself to Ravenna, and there perform what the Archbishop Marinianus should enjoyn him. He did so, and having publickly asked Pardon for his Fault, and purg'd him∣self by Oath before the Sepulchre of St. Apollinaris, he receiv'd Absolution from Marinianus by the order of St. Gregory, and in the presence of Castorius his Envoy, who presented to Maximus a Letter from the Pope, wherein he receiv'd him into his Communion, and engag'd to send him quickly the Pallium. See the following Letters, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 20. B. 3. Ep. 15, 20, 25, 33. B. 4. Ep. 4. 20, 34. B. 5. Ep. 3, 4, 8. B. 6 Ep. 17. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 1, 12. Ind. 2. 60, 81, 82. This Contest continued from the Year 592, to the Year 600.

The Mission of Austin the Monk and his Collegues into England.

THe English having testified their desire to be instructed in the Christian Religion, and the ancient Inhabitants of that Country hating them with so violent a hatred that they would have no Com∣merce with them, St. Gregory chose some Monks of his own Monastery to be sent into England under the Conduct of Austin their Abbot. These Monks having travell'd into Provence, were at first so terrified with the difficulties which they found in this Enterprize, that St. Austin took upon him to re∣turn to Rome, to represent them to St. Gregory. This Pope encourag'd him, and sent him back with Letters of Recommendation address'd to Theodoricus King of Burgundy, Theodebert King of Austrasia, to Queen Brunehaud their Aunt, to Aurigius a Nobleman, and to the Bishops of Vienna, Arles, Aix, and Autun, in which he exhorted them to favour this laudable Undertaking, B. 5. Ep. 52 &c.

Austin being return'd into France was ordain'd by the Bishops of a 1.96 France, and afterwards pass'd

over into England with forty Missionaries, whereof some were French Priests as well as others Ita∣lian Monks. They made a stop at a little Isle, where King Ethelred came to meet them, and after some Conference with them, he permitted them to enter into his Kingdom and his Capital City. After they had learn'd the Language of the Country, they preach'd the Faith of Jesus Christ, and Converted in a little time a very great number of these Infidels; insomuch that in one day of Christmas they baptiz'd more then one thousand Persons. St. Gregory having heard this News, com∣municated it to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria by Letter 30. of Book 7. Ind. 2. And that these auspicious beginnings might be attended also with happy Consequences, he recommended these Mis∣sionaries to the Bishops and Kings of France, by the Letters 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 63 of B. 9. He informs St. Austin what he ought to do by Letter 58. He thanks the Queen of England, who was a Christian, and the Daughter of Charibert King of the French, for the Protection she had gi∣ven to Austin, and exhorts her to finish this Work, B. 9. Ep. 5. * 1.97 He wrote to the King to congra∣tulate his Conversion, and exhorts him to destroy entirely the Remainders of Paganism in his King∣dom, B. 9. Ep. 59. And lastly, to give the greater credit to Austin, he sent him the Pallium, B. 12. Ep. 15.

Of some Letters attributed to St. Gregory, which are either uncertain or supposititious.

HAving made Extracts out of the Letters of St. Gregory, we must here make some remarks upon those Letters which are either to be rejected as supposititious, or whereof there may be some cause to doubt.

The 54th Letter of the second Ind. of B. 7. address'd to Secundinus a recluse Monk, is either wholly forged, or very much corrupted, although Paul the Deacon has put it in the number of the 54 Letters of St. Gregory which he had collected. For 1. the Discipline which is establish'd in that Letter concerning the Clergy who fell into sins of Uncleanness, is perfectly opposite to that of St. Gre∣gory. We have observed that St. Gregory did not leave them any hope of being restor'd, nor of dis∣charging the Duties of their Office, and that he affirms it as a thing undoubted, that this was never permitted, and that he cannot allow it, and if he should it would wholly subvert the order of Ca∣nonical Discipline. On the contrary, the Author of this Letter undertakes to prove that the Priests and Clergy-men, who were fall'n into these sins, ought to be restored. 2. The style of one part of this Letter is very different from that of St. Gregory. There it is said that Secundinus asked him, De Sacerdo∣tali Officio post lapsum authoritates resurgendi. And a little after, Dicit sanctitas tua se diversas sententias invenisse, alias resurgendi alias nequaquam posse, &c. Gregory never spoke after such a barbarous man∣ner. 3. There is no coherence nor connexion in the different parts of this Letter, contrary to the custom of St. Gregory. 4. The Manuscripts are very different; of thirty Manuscripts there are but two in which that place is to be found which concerns the Restauration of Clergy-men fall'n into the sins of Uncleanness; that which concerns Images, and is at the end of the same Letter, is in very few Manuscripts; which proves that these two places at least have been added, neither have they any connexion with the other parts of the Letter.

The Epistle 31. of Book 10. appears also to me to be very doubtful: It's not a Letter of St. Gre∣gory, but a Declaration of a Schismatical Bishop, sign'd by him and his Clergy, wherein he promi∣ses never to relapse into his Schism, under the Pain of Deprivation and Excommunication. In the Title he speaks of Heresie, and in the body of the Writing he speaks, only of Schism. 2. 'Tis no where noted to whom this Declaration was made. 3. He promises to St. Peter the Prince of the A∣postles, and his Vicar the blessed Gregory; which Form does not appear to be so ancient. 4. He swears by the Holy Gospels, and by the Genius of the Emperors. But the Christians would never swear by the Genius of the Emperors under Pagan Emperors; how then should this Form be au∣thorized under a Christian Emperor in an Oath made by a Bishop for an Affair purely Ecclesiastical? 5. 'Tis said in this Declaration, that it was made under the Consuls; but there had not been any Consuls for a long time before. 6. Lastly, This Form is not found in many Manuscripts.

The Memorial concerning the Proclamation of the Emperor Phocas, which is at the beginning of B. 11. is a very uncertain Piece, which ought not to be rank'd among the Letters of St. Gregory, no more then the following Sermon concerning the Processions which St. Gregory caus'd to be made in the time of Mortality, which ought to be plac'd at the beginning of St. Gregory's Pontificat; 'tis found in some Manuscripts before all the Letters.

The Priviledge which is suppos'd to have been granted to a Hospital of the Church of Autun, founded by Queen Brunehaud, and by Siagrius Bishop of that City, has been plac'd among the

Letters of St. Gregory in B. 11. Num. 10. and it must be confest that 'tis found in all the Manu∣scripts: Yet there are strong Reasons for rejecting it; for, 1. John the Deacon makes no mention of it in the Life of St. Gregory. 2. All the Clauses of this pretended. Priviledge are so many Proofs of its Forgery. By the first it forbids Kings and Bishops to touch the Goods given to this Monaste∣ry, or those which shall be given to it for the future, and leaves the whole Administration of them to the Abbot. By the second he gives the Nomination of the Abbot to the King, and leaves the Ap∣probation of him only to the Monks. By the third he Ordains that this Abbot shall not be Deposed but for a Crime; and if he is accused of it, the Bishop of Autun cannot make Process against him, but with six other Bishops. By the fourth 'tis forbidden to make a Bishop Abbot here. By the fifth the Bishop of Autun is disabled to draw out the Monks of this Hospital, and place them among his Clergy. All these Clauses are exorbitant, contrary to common Right, and to the Discipline esta∣blish'd by St. Gregory, who never granted the like Exemptions in the Priviledges which he gave: 3. The Penalty that those who shall violate some of the Articles of this Priviledge, is contrary both to the spirit of St. Gregory, and the practice of his time. There it is declared, that if any King, Bishop, Judge, or Secular Person violate the Rights of this Priviledge, he shall be deprived and de∣graded from his Dignity, Power, and Honour. St. Gregory never us'd these terms, and was more cautious then to do it, who did so much recommend Ecclesiastical Moderation, and shewed so great Veneration to Princes. 4. The style of this Priviledge is very different from that of St. Gregory's Letters.

The two following Letters are Copies of the same Priviledge which is supposed in the first to be granted to Thalassia the Abbess of the Monastery of St. Mary in the City of Autun; and in the second to Lupinus Priest of a Church of St. Martin in the Suburbs of Autun: which proves also the Forge∣ry of this Action; for what probability is there that St. Gregory should grant three Priviledges so ex∣traordinary to three different Communities of one and the same City.

There is in B. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 31. an Answer of St. Gregory to many Articles about which he had been con∣sulted by Austin the Monk. This Piece is not found in many Manuscripts of the Register of St. Gregory's Epistles, and in the eighth Century it was not in the Archieves of the Church of Rome, where Boniface, Archbishop of Mayence, caus'd search for it; which forc'd him to make an Address to Nothelmus Archbishop of Canterbury to ge••a Copy of it. This gave occasion to some to think that this Piece is supposititious; and it must be confest that some of the Answers are extraordinary e∣nough. Nevertheless it seems that the Authority of Paterius, a Disciple of St. Gregory, leaves no room to doubt whether this Writing be truly his, who relates two passages of it in the Extracts * 1.98 which he made out of the Works of St. Gregory: for it's no ways probable that he should quote a forged Piece, who had been Secretary to St. Gregory. 'Tis no wonder that a Copy of it could not be found at Rome in the time of Boniface; for being written for the English, and sent into Eng∣land, the Copies of it ought rather to be found in that Kingdom then at Rome: and in effect, this Writing was there very common. Beda transcribes it in his Ecclesiastical History of England, B. 1. c. 27. It's also cited by Egbert Bishop of York, and by Halitgarius a Bishop of Wales: Neither is it true that there was no Copy of it at Rome, since Pope Zachary quotes it in the Roman Council held in the Year 743, c. 15. Since the time of St. Anselm, Isidore, Ivo of Chartres, Gratian and all the Compilers of Conons and Decretals, have inserted these Answers of St. Gregory into their Collecti∣ons. I do not believe that this Letter was written by St. Gregory in the Year 598, a little after Au∣stin was Ordain'd, but rather in the Year 601, when he sent many Letters into England.

Here follows an Abridgment of the Questions of St. Austin, and the Answers of St. Gregory.

Question: What use should the Bishops make of the Revenues of the Church?

Answer. They ought to divide them into four parts. The first is for the Bishop and his Family, that he may exercise Hospitality and entertain Strangers. The second is for the Clergy. The third for the Poor; and the fourth for repairing Churches. He recommends it to St. Austin, to live in common with his Clergy.

Quest. 2. Whether the Ecclesiasticks, who have not the Gift of Continence, may marry, and if they do, whether they may return to Secular Affairs?

Answ. They may marry if they be not engag'd in Holy Orders, and such ought not to want sub∣sistence; but they shall be obliged to lead a Life agreeable to the Ecclesiastical state, and to sing the Psalms.

Quest. 3. Since there is but one and the same Faith, why have Churches different Customs? As for instance, Why is Mess celebrated after one manner in the French Church, and after another in the Church of Rome?

Answ. Altho Austin knows perfectly the Customs of the Church of Rome, yet he shall have li∣berty to choose in other Churches such Practices as he shall think most pleasing to God, that he may bring them into use in the Church of England.

Quest. 4. What should the Punishment be of him who robs the Church?

Answ. This ought to be regulated by the Quality of the Person who commits the Robbery, viz. Whether he has whereupon to subsist, or whether he did it thro necessity? Some ought to be pu∣nished by pecuniary Mulcts, by making them pay the Damage sustain'd, and the Interest of it: O∣thers ought to be punish'd in their Bodies; some ought to be punish'd more severely, others more slightly. But the Church must always use Charity in punishing and design nothing else but the Refor∣mation

of him whom it corrects. It ought not to be too rigorous in its Chastisments, nor to make advantage by the Robbery, by exacting more then it has lost.

Quest. 5. Can two Brothers, having the same Father and Mother, marry two Sisters which are a-kin to them in a very remote degree?

Answ. They may, since it is not forbidden in Scripture.

Quest. 6. To what Degree may the Faithful marry together? May one marry his Step-mother, or the Widow of his Brother?

Answ. A Roman Law, viz. that of Arcadius and Honorius, Cod. B. 5. T. 4. Leg. 19. permitted Marriages between Cousin-Germans: But St. Gregory did not think these Marriages convenient for two Reasons; 1. Because Experience shows, that no Children are born of them. 2. Because the Divine Law forbids them. But 'tis certain that those who are a-kin to the third or fourth Degree may marry together. 'Tis a great Crime for one to marry his Step-mother; neither is it lawful to marry his Sister-in-law.

Quest. 7. Must those be parted who have made an unlawful Marriage? Must they be depriv'd of the Communion?

Answ. Since there are many English who have contracted this kind of Marriages before their Conversion; therefore when they are converted you must make them understand that this is not lawful, and excite them by the fear of God's Judgment to refrain from it; but you must upon this account interdict them Communion. As to those who are already converted, they must be admo∣nish'd not to engage in any of this kind of Marriages, and if they do, they must be excluded from the Communion.

Quest. 8. When there are no neighbouring Bishops who can assemble together, may one Bishop only Ordain another?

Answ. Austin being at first the only Bishop in England, there was a great necessity that he alone should Ordain Bishops. If any went over to him from Gaul, he was to take them for Witnesses of his Ordination; and when he had Ordain'd many Bishops in England, he was to call three or four of them to be present at his Ordination.

Quest. 9. of Austin. After what manner he should deal with the Bishops of the Gauls, and of the ancient Britains?

Answ. of St. Gregory. He must know that he has no Authority over the Bishops of the Gauls, and the Bishop of Arles ought to enjoy the Priviledges which he had receiv'd from his Predecessors; that he ought to confer with him if there be any Disorders to be reform'd; that he may also excite him to do his Duty, if he were negligent or inconstant, but that he cannot challenge to himself a∣ny Authority among the Gauls. As to the Bishops of Britany, he speaks at another rate: For St. Gregory gives him full Jurisdiction over them, to teach the Ignorant, confirm the Weak, and correct the Disorderly * 1.99.

There is also a Request of Austin, wherein he desires the Reliques of St. Sixtus. The Pope tells him that he had sent them unto him, but he did not look upon them as certain. This Article is not found in the Copies of Bede, nor in many other Manuscripts, and probably it is supposititious.

Quest. 10. contains many Heads: Whether a Woman big with Child may be baptiz'd? How long it must be after her lying in, before she enter into the Church, and have Carnal dealing with her Husband? Whether it be lawful for a Woman, quae tenetur menstrua consuetudine, to enter into the Church? Whether a married Man may enter into the Church, after the use of marriage, without washing?

The Answers to these Heads of Questions are as follow. A Woman big with Child may be bap∣tiz'd. A woman that has newly layn in, ought not to be deny'd Entrance into the Church. A Woman who has newly layn in may be baptiz'd, and her Infant at the very moment of its Birth, if there be danger of death. A Husband ought not to come near his Wife after her lying in, until the Infant be wean'd; and if, by an abuse, she do not suckle it her self, he must wait till the time of her Purgation be over. A Woman who has her ordinary Infirmities, ought not to be for∣bidden to enter into the Church, nor to receive the Communion; but it were better for her to ab∣stain. A Man who has had Carnal Knowledge of his Wife, must wash himself before he enter into the Church, and Communicate.

Quest. 11. Whether it be lawful to receive the Communion the next day after natural Pollutions.

Answ. When these Pollutions proceed from the Infirmity of Nature, there is no fear; but when they proceed from eating or drinking too much, they are not altogether innocent; but this faultought not to hinder any from receiving the Communion, nor from celebrating Mess, when it is a Festival at which they must communicate, or when there is no other Priest to celebrate. But if there be o∣ther Priests, he who is in this condition ought in humility to abstain from celebrating, and especially

if this Pollution was attended with unclean Imaginations. Other Pollutions which proceed from the Thoughts which a Man had while he was waking are yet more Criminal, because these Thoughts are the cause of them; And in unchaste Thoughts we must distinguish three things, the Desire, the Pleasure, and the Consent. When there is only a Desire, there is not as yet any Sin, but when we take Pleasure in such Thoughts, then the Sin begins, and when we consent to them, then the Sin is finish'd.

The Letter which is attributed to Felix of Messina, is certainly a supposititious Piece. The Title does not well agree with the Custom of that time; Domino beatissimo & honorabili Sancto Patri Gregorio Papae, Felix vestrae salutis amator. The style of the Letter is affected, and has nothing na∣tural in it. The Author affirms, That Marriages were always forbidden to any within the seventh Degree of Consanguinity, and that the Council of Nice ordain'd thus; which is manifestly false. Lastly, He speaks of one Benedict Bishop of Syracuse; but he who was at that time in this See, was call'd John, and there never was a Bishop of Syracuse called Benedict.

The Authority of the Letter of St. Gregory to Felix, seems to be better founded. For, 1. John the Deacon recites a part of it in the Life of St. Gregory, B. 2. c. 37. Hincmarus, Regino, and the Canonists relates some Passages of it, and it is found in many Manuscripts. Yet there is great proba∣bility that it is either altogether forged, or very much corrupted. For, 1. It is plac'd in Indiction the seventh; but Felix was not at that time Bishop of Messina, for Donus succeeded him in the Year 598. 2. It is made up of Scraps taken out of several places of St. Gregory, and other Authors. The beginning of it is taken from Letter 111, B. 7. Ind. 2. There are allo in it some passages taken out of the fifth Letter of the fourth Book, and out of the Letters 394. 114. 120. of the seventh Book. There is a passage in it copied out of the second Letter falsly attributed to Pope Cornelius, the fifth Canon of the eleventh Council of Toledo, the sixth of the Council of Agda, a passage of the fifth Council of Rome under Symmachus, one Sentence of Isidore of Sevil. The Letter concludes in the same words with Letter 50 of B. 4. So that this Letter must be look'd upon as a Rhapsody taken out of many Pieces.

Lastly, The pretended Priviledge of St. Medardus of the Suessions, which is at the end of the Letters, has been so often overthrown, and by such convincing reasons, that I do not think any Man now dare maintain it. The chief Reasons which overthrow it, are these following; 1. It is not found in any Manuscript of St. Gregory, except one of St. Victor, which is not above four hundred years old; and Cardinal Bona attests, that this Priviledge is not found in the Archives of the Church of Rome. At first it was printed at the end of St. Gregory's Works, after that it was plac'd among his Letters in the Edition at Rome, and lastly, it was printed after the Letters. 2. The style a 1.100 of this Priviledge smells of the Barbarism of Modern Writers, and the Impertinence of an Impo∣stor.

The Clauses of this Priviledge are not only exorbitant and extraordinary, but also in defen∣sible b 1.101.

It contains many things false and contrary to History c 1.102.

The Subscriptions discover plainly the Forgery of it. There is found in it the Subscription of King Theodoricus, who was not yet upon the Throne: The Bishops of Carthage are made to sign it, and even those Bishops that were dead. There are ••ound in it two Bishops of one and the same See at the same time; and the Names of Bishops which are different from those, who are known to have been Bishops of these Churches at that time. Lastly, It is a thing unheard, that a Priviledge should be sign'd by so great a number of Bishops d 1.103

In fine, the Year 594 is us'd for the date of this L••tter; but we do not see that St. Gregory ever us'd this date; and that which renders it suspicious is, that the Jurisdiction which is subjoyn'd, an∣swears to the Year 593, and not to 594. All these Reasons prove invincibly the Forgery of this In∣strument, which deserv'd not to be plac'd among the Works of St. Gregory.

The Letter which is at the beginning of St. Gregory's Morals on the Book of Job, informs us of his Design in composing this Work, of the method in which he manag'd it, and how he put it in exe∣cution. It is address'd to St. Leander Bishop of Sevil, with whom he had contracted a very close Friendship at Constantinople, when he was there about the Affairs of the Holy See, and when St. Le∣ander was sent thither as Ambassador by the King of the Wisigoths. St. Gregory puts such Confidence in him, that he acquaints him with the disposition of his heart, and the troubles of mind he had endur'd, and disco vers to him, that tho God had inspir'd him with the desire of Heaven, and he was perswa∣ded, that it was more advantageous to forsake the World, yet he had delay'd his Conversion for ma∣ny years: That nevertheless he was at last deliver'd from the Entanglements of the World, and re∣tir'd into the happy Harbour of a Monastery; but he was quickly drawn from thence to enter into Orders, which engaged him anew in Secular Affairs, and oblig'd him to go to the Court of the Em∣peror at Constantinople: That nevertheless, he had the comfort to be attended thither by many Monks, with whom he had daily Spiritual Conferences. Then it was that they urg'd him with much im∣portunity, and St. Leander did even force him to explain to them the Book of Job, after such a manner as they desir'd, i. e. by subjoyning to the Allegorical Explication of the Historoy a Morality supported by many other Testimonies of Holy Scripture. This was the occasion which mov'd St. Gregory to undertake this Work. He repeated the beginning of it in the presence of his Monks, and dictated the rest in divers Treatises. Afterwards having more leisure, he added to it many things, cut off some, reduc'd the whole Work into better Order, and made it uniform, by changing the Discourses and Treatises to the same style. He divided this Work into 35 Books, which were distributed into six Tomes. He confesses that he sometimes neglected the Order and Coherence of the Exposition which he undertook, and apply'd himself wholly to Contemplation and Morality: But he excuses himself by saying, that whosoever speaks of God, ought necessarily to enlarge upon that which is most instructive and edifying for the Lives of those that hear him, and that he thought it the best method he could observe in his Work, to make a Digression sometimes from its principal subject, when an occasion presented it self of procuring the welfare and advantage of his Neighbour. He adds, that there are some things which he handles in a few words according to the truth of Hi∣story; other things whose allegorical and figurative senses he enquires after, and others from which he only draws Morality; and lastly, others which he explains with great care in all these three ways. He affirms also, that there are some places which cannot be explain'd literally, because if they should be taken precisely according to the sense of the words, instead of instructing those who read them, they would mislead them into Error, or confirm things that are contradictory. Lastly, he excuses the defects of his Work from his continual Sickness, and declares that he did not hunt after the Ornaments of Rhetorick, to which the Interpreters of Scripture are never oblig'd. At the conclusion of this Letter, he remarks, that he ordinarily follows the late Version of the Scrip∣ture; but yet he takes the liberty, when he thinks it necessary to quote passages, sometimes accord∣ing to the Old, and sometimes according to the New-Version; and that since the Holy See, over which he presided, us'd both the one and the other, he also employ'd them both indifferently, to au∣thorize and confirm what he asserted in his Work.

In the Preface of this Work having said, that some thought Moses to be the Author of the Book of Job, and others attributed it to the Prophets, he looks upon it as a thing very needless to enquire in what time Job liv'd, and who wrote his History, since 'tis certain that the Holy Spirit dictated it, altho 'tis very probable, that Job himself wrote it. After these few Historical Remarks, he enters upon General Reflexions of a Moral Nature, about the Patience of Job, the Afflictions of the Righ∣teous, the Pride of Job's Friends, the Conformity of Job to Jesus Christ. This is what the Preface contains.

The Body of the Commentary is agreeable to the Idea which he gives of it, i. e. that he does not insist upon the litteral Exposition but upon the Allegories and Moralities which he applies to the Text of Job, whereof a great part may be applied to every other place of Holy Scripture. But he does not so much labour to explain the Book of Job, as to amass together in one Work an infinite num∣ber of Moral Thoughts. And indeed it must be confess'd, that altho these Books are not a very good Commentary upon the Book of Job, yet they are a great Magazine of Morality. 'Tis incre∣dible, how many Principles, Rules and proper Instructions are to be found there for all sorts of Per∣sons, Ecclesiastical as well as Secular; for those who converse with the World, as well as for those who live in Retirement, for the Great and for the Small; in a word, for all sorts of States, Ages and Conditions. We shall not here undertake to give a particular account of them, for if we should make Extracts from such kind of Allegorical and Moral Commentaries, our Work would grow in∣finitely big. This is written with much simplicity and clearness, but it is not so very brisk and sub∣lime: yet it was very much esteem'd in the Life-time of St. Gregory, and admir'd after his Death. We learn from himself, that the Bishops caus'd it to be read in the Church. or at their Table, altho he would not suffer it to be done in modesty, and all those who have spoken of it since his death, have commended it as a most excellent Work. There is a Relation which says, That sometime after his Death, the Original which he had given to 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Leander, being lost in Spain, Tagion Bishop of Saragosa, was deputed in a Council held at Toledo under King Cyndesides, to be sent to Rome to en∣quire for a Copy of it: That this Bishop being arriv'd there, and finding no satisfaction from the Pope, who put him off from day to day, pretending it was very difficult to find these Books of St. Gregory, because of the multitude of Volumes that were in the Archieves of Rome; at last this good Bishop went to Prayers in the Church of St. Peter, and there appeared unto him the Apostles St. Peter, St. Paul, and their Successors, and among the rest St. Gregory, who drew near to him, and show'd him the Study where the Books were which he enquir'd after. This Relation which appear'd not till about 400 years ago, appears to me of little credit a 1.104.

The Pastoral of St. Gregory, or his Book about the Care which Pastors ought to take of their Flocks, was as well receiv'd as his Morals. It was no sooner gone out of the hands of St. Gregory, but it was sought for and valued by all those who had a love for Episcopacy. The great Reputa∣tion it had got, mov'd the Emperor Mauritius to desire it of Anatolius a Deacon of the Church of Rome, who was at Constantinople. Assoon as he had a Copy of it, he gave it to Anastasius the Pa∣triarch of Antioch, who translated it into Greek. St. Leander desir'd it of St. Gregory. In fine, this Book quickly spread over all the Churches, and the Bishops look'd upon it as their Rule: But chiefly those of France judg'd it so necessary, that they ordain'd in many Synods held in the ninth Age, that the Bishops should be oblig'd to understand it, and to live according to the Rules prescribed in it: And to the end that this Obligation might the more readily be remembred, it was put into their hand at the time of their Ordination b 1.105.

'Tis not without reason that this Book is so highly valued in France, for indeed it contains In∣structions of great Importance, and very good Rules about the Pastoral Office. 'Tis divided into four Parts. After a Letter to John Bishop of Ravenna, to whom St. Gregory address'd this Book, be∣cause he had reprov'd him for refusing the Priesthood so obstinately; He begins with showing what rashness it was for any one to undertake the Conduct of Souls. who had neither the Capacity nor Knowledge necessary for discharging it well; which he calls the Art of Arts, and Science of Scien∣ces. He deplores the blindness of those who are so unhappy as to seek after Ecclesiastical Offices, un∣der pretence of promoting the Salvation of Souls by their Direction, when indeed they have no o∣ther design but to satisfie their own ambitious desire of Honour, of appearing learned and able men, and of being exalted above others. He bemoans the People who are under the Conduct of such am∣bitious and ignorant men, who can neither instruct them by their Example, nor by word of mouth. He adds, That this Ignorance of Pastors is often a Punishment of their disorderly Life, and that God by a just Judgment suffers their Ignorance to be an occasion of Falling to those who follow them. From those that are Ignorant, he passes to those who have acquir'd Knowledge by their Industry,

but never reduc'd it into Practice; and on the contrary have defil'd their feet by walking in a way unbecoming the Truths which they have learned. He cannot endure those Men who are very for∣ward to teach others that which they never practise, and who are a Scandal to the Church, by a Life perfectly contrary to the Truths which they teach. He would have Pastors to be of such a Dis∣position as to despise the Glory, the Dignities, and the Prosperity of this World, to fear neither the Terrors nor Threatnings of it, to beready to suffer for the Defence of the Truth, and to shun the Pleasures of this Life.

Altho he was perswaded that the Duties of the Pastoral Office wearied the Mind, yet he would not have those Perlons, who are fit to conduct Souls, and may be useful to others by their Doctrine and Example, to prefer their own Ease before the Care of Souls. Upon this Principle he does e∣qually reprove those, whose Humility makes them shun Ecclesiastical Offices, so as obstinately to oppose the Order of Providence, and those who desire them passionately and importunately seek af∣ter them. He would have him who has the Qualifications necessary for being a Guide of Souls, to yield when he is urg'd to accept that Office; and on the contrary, he advises him who is not qualifi∣ed, never to engage himself, tho he were never so much urg'd to accept the Office. After he has laid down this Maxim, he enlarges upon the particular Qualifications which belong to those who should accept of a Bishoprick, and the Defects which should make others decline it.

In the second Part St. Gregory treats of the Duties of the Pastoral Office, when one is promoted to this Dignity by lawful and canonical ways. He shows that there ought to be a great difference between the Vertue of a Pastor and his People; and that a Pastor ought to have the following Qua∣lifications. That all his Thoughts must be pure, that in Vertue he ought to excel others, that Pru∣dence and Discretion should govern his silence, that his Speech should be useful and edifying, that he should be tender and compassionate to all the World, that he should be sublime in Contemplation, and lowly in Humility, preferring all others above himself, that his Zeal for Justice should prompt him to oppose the Vices of bad Men, that his Employment in external things should diminish no∣thing of the Care he ought to take of those which are internal, and that the Application he ought to use to such things as concern the Soul, ought not to take him off from the due care of regulating ex∣ternal matters. These are the Qualifications of a true Pastor, on which St. Gregory enlarges in the second Part.

In the third he treats of the Instructions which Pastors ought to give their Flocks, and applies himself particularly to show, after what manner they ought to be varied, according to the different Qualities and Dispositions of those whom they instruct, whereof some are to be admonish'd, and o∣thers to be instructed. As for example, they must prescribe to Men things more excellent and more difficult to exercise their Vertue, whereas nothing must be enjoyn'd to Women but what is soft and easie: Younger People must be treated more mildly then those that are old; the Poor must be com∣forted, the Rich must be humbled: The Sorrows of Hell must be represented to those who are mer∣rily disposed, and to those who are sad, the Joys of another Life: Those who are Inferiors must be admonish'd to be subject, and those who are in high Places, not to be proud: Obedience must be recommended to Servants, and Meekness to Masters: Those who think themselves learned, must be moved to despise their Learning, and the Ignorant must be instructed in true Knowledge. 'Tis good to use sharp Reproofs to those who are impudent, whereas we must seek for mild ways to re∣claim those that are modest. The Presumptuous must be abash'd and humbled, whereas the Ti∣morous must be exhorted and encouraged. The sick need other Instructions then those that are in health. In a word, a Pastor must proportion his Instructions, Advices, Reptoofs and Exhortations. to the Constitution, the State, the Temper, Inclinations and Customs, to the Vertues and Vices of those to whom he speaks. In this second Part of St. Gregory's Postoral you may find a wonderful di∣versity of particular Advices, which will be of great use for Confessors, and for all those who are engag'd by their Ministry to guide others. After St. Gregory has given these private Instructions, he proceeds to those which concern publick Offices, and admonishes Preachers to take good heed, lest they so commend Vertues to their Auditors, as to give them occasion to fall into the contrary Vices. He would have Humility so preach'd to the Proud, as not to encrease the Fear of timorous Persons; the slothful so excited to diligence, as those who are too active may not take occasion to be too eager in business. The Impatient must be so rebuk'd, as not to inspire negligence into the Slothful. The Co∣vetous must be so exhorted to give liberally, as not to authorize Prodigality. Virginity and a state of Continence must be so praised, as not to give occasion to blame Marriage, nor despise the fruit∣fulness of married Persons. In fine, his Hearers on the one side are to be excited in such a manner to do good, that on the other side they may not be perswaded to that which is evil. What is more perfect is so to be praised before them, that they take no occasion to despise a lesser Perfection: And they must be so exhorted to be faithful in little things, that they may not imagine these to be suffici∣ent and by this conceit neglect to labour after those that are higher and more sublime. The last thing whereof St. Gregory admonishes Preachers, is, That they should say nothing in their Instructi∣ons which is above the Capacity of those who hear them, lest their Mind being too intent, grow weary and disrelish it: But above all he recommends to them, that they instruct the People more by their Example then their Discourses.

The fourth Part is nothing but a Reflexion upon the Obligation which all Pastors have to retire within themselves, and to humble themselves before God, for fear lest they take occasion to grow proud for discharging the Duties of their Office. He ends this Work with this humble Conclusion. You see, my dear Friend, what your childing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 obliged me to write unto you: But while I thus labour to show what manner of Man a True Pastor should be, I do just like a very filthy and ugly Painter, who should represent upon Canvass the figure of a very comely and well-shap'd Man: I intrude into the Office of Conducting others to the Port of Perfection, while I my self am toss'd with the Floods of my own Passions and Vices. I conjure you therefore to endeavour to support me by the merit of your Prayers, as by a Plank, in the shipwreck of this present Life, that so feeling my self sink in the Waters of the Tem∣pestuous Sea of this World, by the weight of my own Inclinations, your charitable hand may relieve me, and raise me up above the Water?

The Homilies upon Ezekiel are of the number of those which St. Gregory preach'd to his People. Nevertheless he review'd them that he might make them publick, about eight years after they were preached. They are address'd to Marinianus Bishop of Ravenna, and divided into two Books. The first contains twelve Homilies upon the three first Chapters of Ezekiel, and upon a part of the fourth. St. Gregory was forc'd by his urgent Affairs to break off the Course of this Exposition, and therefore he did only explain the Vision of an House built upon a Mountain, which is related in the fortieth Chapter of this Prophet. This afforded him a Subject for ten Homilies, which make the se∣cond Book of the Homilies upon Ezekiel. He handles things in these Homilies much after the same manner as he does in his Morals upon Job, altho he does not enlarge so much upon them.

He was also oblig'd to revise his Homilies upon the Gospels, which he had caus'd to be read to the People, or had preach'd himself in the Church, because Copies of them had been distributed as they were either dictated or spoken. The Collection of them is also divided into two Books. The first contains the twenty first Homilies which he dictated to his Secretaries; and the second the twen∣ty last which he preach'd himself.

Altho there can be no doubt but the Dialogues which go under the name of St. Gregory, are in∣deed this Pope's, since he himself owns them a 1.106, and his Disciples b 1.107, and the Authors who wrote within a little while after him, do attribute them to him, yet this Work does not appear worthy of the gravity and discretion of this holy Pope, 'tis so full of extraordinary Miracles and Histories al∣most incredible. 'Tis true he reports them upon the Credit of others, but then he should not so easi∣ly believe them, and vent them afterwards for things that are certain. This Work is divided into four Books, written by way of Dialogue between St. Gregory, who relates what he had learn'd, and Peter the Deacon, who puts Questions to him from time to time about these Histories. The style is no ways sublime, the Histories are there related after a very simple and plain manner, without any art or pleasantness. The Interruptions of Peter are often impertinent, and always insipid. The Histories related in it are many times grounded only upon the Relations of ignorant old Men, or common Reports. Miracles there are so frequent, so extraordinary and often times for matters of small consequence, that 'tis very difficult to believe them all. There are stories in it which can ve∣ry hardly be reconcil'd with the Life of those of whom he speaks, as the voluntary imprisonment of Paulinus in Afric. under the King of the Vandals. Visions, Apparitions, Dreams, are there in great∣er numbers then in any other Author: And therefore St. Gregory confesses, towards the latter end, that the things of another World had been more discover'd in his time, then in all the Ages preced∣ing. But I do not believe that any Man will warrant all these Relations. Leaving others therefore to their liberty of judging as they please, I shall say no more about them, but only subjoyn here an Abridgment of the greater part of them.

Honoratus Abbot of a Monastery of Fundi, being present at a Feast, where there was nothing but Meat, made a scruple to eat of it; and while the Guests rallied him, because he was in a place where nothing else was to be had, a Servant went out to draw some water, and brought in a great fish in a Pitcher. The same Abbot by his Prayers stop'd a Rock which was ready to fall with great force up∣on his Monastery. Libertinus his Disciple hindred the Horses of the Goths from passing the Ri∣ver, to make his own Horse come to him: He raised also a dead Infant. A Gardiner of this Mo∣nastery plac'd a Serpent in ambuscade against a Robber. The Abbot Equicius, a Founder of ma∣ny Monasteries, was miraculously deliver'd from the Temptations of the Flesh, in a Vision, wherein he thought that he was made an Eunuch. A Bishop having brought before him a Monk who was a Magician, he judg'd him; and after he had watch'd him for some time, he caus'd him to be turn'd out of his Monastery. This Monk confess'd that he had many times lifted up into the Air the Cell of St. Equitius, without being able to do him any hurt. A Nun having greedily taken a Letuce

in a Garden, without making the sign of the Cross, was possess'd with a Devil. St. Equicius dis∣possess'd her, after he had made the Devil confess that he was upon this Lettuce: The Pope having sent to hinder him from Preaching, was admonish'd in a Dream to permit him. Peter asks upon this occasion, how so great a Pope could be mistaken as to a Person of so eminent Vertue. St. Gregory answers him, That this was not to be wondred at, since all men are liable to mistakes, Falli∣mur, quia homines sumus, Popes as well as others. Constantius Churchwarden of the Church of St. Stephen at Ancona, having no Oyl to light the Lamps, fill'd them with Water, and after he had kin∣dled the Wicks, they maintain'd the flame as if the Lamps had been full of Oyl. Marcellinus Bishop of that City, expos'd himself to the flames of a fire, and by that means stop'd it. Nonnosus a Monk of Mount Sina, remov'd by his Prayers a part of a Rock, to make room for a Garden belong∣ing to his Monastery. A Glass-Lamp being broken, he gather'd the little pieces of it together be∣fore the Altar, and after he had pray'd he found the Lamp entire. The Abbot Anastasius was ad∣monish'd of his own death, and the death of seven of his Monks, by a Voice which call'd them one after another. Boniface Bishop of Ferentinum, multiplied Wine, foretold the death of a Beggar, miraculously receiv'd pieces of Gold, that he might restore them to his Kinsman, from whom he had taken them to give Alms to the Poor. Fortunatus Bishop of Tudentinum, chas'd the Devil out of those who were possess'd, restor'd sight to the Blind, cur'd a mad Horse, heal'd a broken Bone, and rais'd the Dead. A Priest call'd Severus, raised one from the Dead, that he might have time to do Penance. These are a part of the Miracles contain'd in the first Book.

The second Book contains the Life and Miracles of St. Benedict. There he relates after what manner this Saint going out of Rome, was detain'd some time at Aufidena, where by a Miracle he made a Sieve whole which his Nurse had broken. Afterwards he speaks of his Retirement to Sub∣lacum. He describes the voluntary Punishment which he inflicted upon himself, by rowling himself stark naked for a considerable time upon Thorns to conquer the Temptations of the Flesh. He does not forget to observe, that he being invited into a Monastery, whose Monks had a mind to poison him, broke the Glass wherein the Poison was presented to him, by making the sign of the Cross. He relates many other Miracles of the same nature. A Monk was cur'd of his Distractions by blows with a stick; a Spring was found upon the top of a Mountain. The Iron of a Spade being cast into a Lake, came up again above the Water, and joyn'd it self to the haft. A Monk of St. Maur walk'd upon the Water to fetch out brother Placidus who was drown'd. A Stone which the Devil had made unmoveable, was easily remov'd by his Prayers. The seeming flames which were caus'd by an Idol, were extinguish'd. A young Monk crush'd by the fall of a Wall, was rais'd to life a∣gain. The knowledge of things hidden, and the prediction of things future did never fail him. An Ecclesiastical Person was deliver'd from a Devil, and afterwards possess'd a-new, for aspiring to Ho∣ly Orders which this Saint had forbidden him. Two hundred Measures of Corn were found at the Gate of a Monastery, at a time when there was great need of it. The Nuns threatned with Ex∣communication by St. Benedict, who died a little while after, did visibly go out of the Church, when the Deacon order'd those who were Excommunicated to retire; But he took off this Excommuni∣cation, and after the Offering was presented for them which be blessed, they were never more seen to go out as before. A young Hennit, who was gone out of a Monastery without leave, dying in his own House was buried, and the next day after his Body was found above ground. His Kins∣folk had recourse to St. Benedict, who gave them the Communion of the Body of our Saviour, and order'd them to put it upon the Breast of the deceased, and then to bury him with it; which being done, he continued after that under ground. A Leper was cur'd by his Prayers: A Bottle of Oyl thrown down from a high place was preserved whole: Sometimes he got Money, and sometimes Oyl. He cur'd an Hermit possess'd of a Devil. He loos'd a Country-man who was bound fast, only by his own looks. He raised a dead Infant. His Sister, St. Scholastica, raised a furious storm, to force him to lye at her House. He saw his own Soul ascend to Heaven in the shape of a Dove. He had also another Vision wherein he perceiv'd the Soul of Germanus Bishop of Capua, which the Angels carried up to Heaven. He foretold his own Death, which was follow'd with Miracles.

The third Book contains the Vertues and Miracles of many Saints of Italy. There it is related that Paulinus Bishop of Nola went into Afric, to render himself a Prisoner to the King of the Van∣dals, that he might deliver the only Son of a Widow of his own Country; and that he being dis∣cover'd by a miraculous Vision, did not only obtain his own Deliverance, but also the Deliverance of all the Prisoners of War: That a Horse on which Pope John mounted, would never after carry a Woman, and that this Pope cur'd a blind Man at Constantinople. That Pope Agapetus heal'd a lame Man; That Dacius Bishop of Milan deliver'd a House from Spectres which the Devil made to appear there; That Sabinus Bishop of Lanusa, being blind, knew every thing that pass'd, and one day his Arch-deacon having presented to him Poyson by a Servant, he would not drink it, but order'd the Servant to drink it; and afterwards having hindred him from doing it, he drunk it off himself, after he had made the sign of the Cross, without receiving any hurt, and order'd the Boy to go and tell him who had given him this Poyson, that he should not be Bishop; and indeed the Arch-deacon died immediately. 'Tis also reported in the same Book, that Andrew Bishop of Fundi, being tempted by a Nun who dwelt in his House, was restrain'd by an Adventure pleasant enough. A Jew having stop'd near the place where formerly the Temple of Apollo at Fundi stood, heard there the Devils give an account to their Prince of what they had done; and among them there was one

who boasted, that he had inspir'd this Temptation into Andrew. This Jew having found out this Bishop, discover'd to him what he had heard; which mov'd this Bishop to turn out of his House, not only this Nun, but also all the other Women, that there might be no occasion for a Temptation. A Bishop of Luca chang'd the Course of a River, by his own word only: Another stop'd the Inun∣dation of the Po by a Letter. Others are preserv'd from their Enemies, from Serpents, and from Savage Beasts. A Hermit raised one from the dead. A new Nun chas'd away the Devil. A Rubber was seiz'd at the Sepulchre of a holy Priest. In short, there are many other Miracles of this Nature in this Book: And there he speaks also of some Christians who suffer'd for the Faith under the Lombards.

In the fourth Book he undertakes to treat of the state of the Soul after death, and to refute the Opinion of some, who without separating from the Church, doubted whether the Soul liv'd after its separation from the Body. There he observes, that 'tis not to be wondred, that Man being born Carnal, and not being able to feel invisible things, should be hardly brought to believe them; that notwithstanding Men must of necessity believe such things as they do not feel: That there are three sorts of Spirits; Spirits which are never united to any Flesh, and Spirits which are united to it, but do not dye with it, and Spirits which are united to Flesh, and die with the Body. The Angels are the first sort, the Souls of Men are the second, and the Souls of Beasts are the third. He answers a passage of Ecclesiastes, where 'tis said that Beasts and Men die alike, by affirming that it is a Question propos'd by the Author, and not his Decision of it. He adds, that we must not wonder that we do not see the Soul go out of the Body, since it is not seen even in the Body, and that as it discovers it self when it is in the Body by its Motions, so it does also when it is out of the Body by the Miracles of the Saints; that moreover the Eyes of the Body cannot perceive the Soul, since it is invisible, but the Just do purifie the Eyes of their Mind. To prove this, he brings the Exam∣ples of many, whose Souls have been seen after their death; or of Saints, who have seen at the time of their death, either Jesus Christ, or the Virgin, or some of the Saints. As to the state of Souls after death, he says, that those of the Just, who are perfect, are receiv'd into Heaven; that those of them who are not so perfect, are detain'd in certain Receptacles; and that those of the wick∣ed are thrown into Hell-fire, which torments them, altho it be Corporeal. He thinks it no more difficult to explain the manner, whereby it causes pain in the other Life then in this. He believes that the Damned know the Happiness of the Just, and the Blessed the Misery of the Damned. He main∣tains expresly that there is a Purgatory, for expiating the slight faults of those who have deserv'd this Grace, by the good Actions which they did in this Life * 1.108. He observes that many things have been discover'd a little while ago which were unknown in Antiquity, concerning the state of Souls after death: The Reason which he gives for it is this, that the end of the World drawing near, the Transactions of the other begin to be discover'd. He thinks it probable enough, that Hell is under ground, and that there is but one Fire in it, which burns some more and some less, according to the proportion of the number and heinousness of their Crimes. He proves that the Fire of Hell shall never end. He would not have Credit given to all sorts of Dreams, tho he does not doubt but by some of them God reveals things to come. He believes that it is profitable for the dead, who are not accused of Crimes, to be inter'd in holy Places, because their Sepulchres put the Living in mind to pray to God for them, that among the Prayers which relieve the dead, the Oblation of the holy Sacrifice is the most profitable † 1.109; but that it is more safe for one to expiate his own Faults by his own Sacrifices and Prayers, while he is in this Life, then to expect the Relief of others after his death: That he must offer up himself while the Host is offer'd, bewail his sins, and never commit them any more; and lastly, he must pardon others, that he may obtain pardon of his own Faults.

These are all the Works which are certainly known to be St. Gregory's. For altho there have been publish'd for a long time under his Name in the common Editions, the Commentaries upon the Book of Kings, upon the 7 Psalms, and upon the Canticles, yet the Author of the last Edition brings ve∣ry strong Reasons to prove that they are none of this Fathers. 1. Having caus'd every where search to be made for the Manuscripts of St. Gregory's Works, he found not any where these Commenta∣ries were to be met with (except the Commentary upon the Canticles, whereof some Manuscripts were found) either joyn'd with the Works of St. Gregory, or apart by themselves. The Commen∣tary upon the Canticles was printed at Paris in 1498, by Remboldus: The Exposition of the seven

Penitential Psalms, was also printed by the same Person in 1512. and the Commentary upon the Can∣ticles was publish'd at Venice in 1537. But it is not known from what Manuscript these Works were printed, and there has never been any one since, who has said that he saw it. 2. St. Gregory menti∣ons in his Letters all his other Works, but he says nothing of these. 3. These Commentaries have been unknown to all those who have seen the Works of St. Gregory. Paterius a Disciple of St. Gregory, who made a Collection of Testimonies out of the Works of his Master, has not quoted so much as one which can be taken out of these three Commentaries; and 'tis not credible, but there would have been many passages in them found worthy to be quoted, if he had known them. The same Reflexion may be made upon the Work of Taius Bishop of Saragosa, who publish'd in 650 a Collection taken out of the Works of St. Gregory. Al••lfus Monk of Tournay in the Year 1090, com∣pil'd another Work out of the Books of St. Gregory, which was more large then those we have al∣ready mention'd; 'tis found in Manuscript in the Monastery of Longpont, and neither is there found in it any passage taken out of these Commentaries. To these Authors we may add those who have written since St. Gregory's time upon the Canticles, or the Book of Kings, as Bede, Angelonus a Monk of Luxovium, Rabanus, Rupertus, who have neither quoted, nor transcribed these Commentaries, al∣tho it be the Custom of these Authors to quote or transcribe the Writings of the Fathers. Among o∣thers, Rabanus observes in the Preface to his Commentary upon the Books of Kings, that he often transcribes passages out of St. Austin and St. Gregory. And indeed he recites many passages taken out of the Works of this Father; but he has not transcribed any thing out of the Commentaries upon the Books of Kings; and yet it was a Work which he might easily have transcribed, and out of which he should have taken many passages. Lastly, the Authors who have given us a Catalogue of the Works of St. Gregory, have said nothing of these three Commentaries. Isidore of Sevil speaks of his Pastoral, of his Morals upon Job, of his Epistles, and at the same time notes, that he had written other Discourses of Morality, Homilies upon all the four Gospels; that this Work was unknown to him: But he says nothing of these Commentaries. Ildefonsus of Toledo mentions all the other Works of St. Gregory, and says nothing of the Commentary upon the Book of Kings, nor the Exposition up∣on the 7 Psalms. He speaks of a Work upon the Canticles, but it is thought that it was different from that of which we have spoken. Sigebert of Gemblours believes that there were no other Works of St. Gregory, but his Morals, his Homilies upon Ezekiel, forty Homilies upon the Gospels, his Pa∣storal, his Dialogues, and the Register of his Letters. As to the other Works, he says, that the Romans had burnt them; which Trithemius also affirms of the Commentary of St. Gregory upon the Books of Kings. 'Tis true, St. Gregory informs us himself, B. 10. Ep. 22. that he had made Discour∣ses upon the Proverbs, upon the Canticles, upon the Prophets, upon the Books of Kings, and upon the Heptateuch which the Abbot Claudius had taken in writing as well as he could; that St. Gregory, who had not health enough to write them himself, might enlarge upon these Memoirs when he should have health and leisure; but St. Gregory having read them, and finding that in many places he had not apprehended his sence, caus'd to bring to him all that he had written. The Author of the last Edi∣tion of St. Gregory affirms, that these Discourses of St. Gregory's, collected by the Abbot Claudius, were different from these Commentaries. But I see no reason why we may not say that the Com∣mentaries upon the Books of Kings and the Canticles, are a remnant of this Abbot's Collection. For the Reasons which he brings, prove indeed that St. Gregory did not dictate and compose them in the form wherein they now are, but they do not prove that they are not a part of the Collection of the Abbot Claudius, who did not tye himself up to St. Gregory's manner of writing, but composed this Work suo sensu & stilo, and who also many times did not take the sence of this Father: For this be∣ing suppos'd, 'tis easie to conceive that this Abbot might Collect only a part of the Discourses of St. Gregory upon the Book of Kings, that he wrote them by way of Commentary, whereas they were in the form of Homilies; that he only us'd the Vulgar Version of the Scripture, tho St. Gregory us'd St. Jerom's. It was also necessary that the style of these Commentaries should be different in some things from St. Gregory's, tho 'tis often very like it. And lastly, we must not wonder that the Author some times addresses the Discourse to Monks, since he being an Abbot, and having made this Collection for his Monks, might apply to them what St. Gregory had said to Christians in general. And therefore though St. Gregory did not compose these two Commentaries, it may be said that they are in some sort his Works, since they were made upon what he was heard to say.

We cannot say the same of the Exposition of the seven Penitential Psalms, which cannot be a Work of St. Gregory's time; for the Author of this Commentary speaks there in three places, in Psal. 5. v. 9. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 26. and in Psal. 27. against an Emperor of his time, whom he accuses of reviving Simony in the Church, of troubling it with a dangerous Schism, of endeavouring to enslave it, of invading what belonged to it, of making himself Lord over the Church of Rome, and attempting to impoly his Power against it. It appears plainly that this can have no relation to Mauritius, nor to Phocas, to whom St. Gregory speaks after a very different manner; but that it agrees to the Controversie be∣tween the Emperor Henry the Fourth, and Gregory the Seventh, about Investitures, and to the Cha∣racter of that Pope. This is therefore either his Work, or the Work of one of his Abetters. The style sufficiently discovers that 'tis neither St. Gregory's the first, nor any of his Disciples.

It cannot be affirm'd that the Antiphonarium and the Sacramentarium of St. Gregory are such now as they were in his time. John the Deacon, who liv'd 300 years after him, is the first who speaks of his Antiphonarium in B. 2. of his Life, Chap. 6. and he says that a Manuscript of it was preserv'd at

Rome in the Palace of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But there is no proof that this Copy was very ancient nor that the Antiphon••riu•• which we now have, was perfectly like it; However it be, this Work is of no great importance. The Sacramentary, on the Book of the Office of the Mess, would be more use∣ful, if it were evident that we have it now the same which it was in the time of St. Gregory. But on the contrary, 'tis certain that we have it not in its 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and that many things are added to it; for, it is now a long time since three Authors were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 before it, to distinguish what was St. Gregory's and what was added. The Abbot Grimboldus, the Priest 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Monk of Tours, who liv'd about the Year 849, and Albina or Alcainus took this care in the Editions which they made of the Sacra∣mentary. But they do not agree among themselves about what is added to it, which shews that they have no certain proof of it, but that they make this distinction only by conjecture. In 1597. Rocca the Pope's Sacristane, publish'd it from a Manuscript at Rome very different from that of Grimboldus which was publish'd by Pamolius. And since that Father, Menardus has caus'd one to be printed more large then the former, reviewed by many Manuscripts, and chiefly by an ancient Ma∣nuscript which is thought to have been the Missal of St. Eloi, altho it contains the Feasts of St. Prix and Leo the Second, who liv'd since the death of this Bishop. This great variety sufficiently disco∣vers that we have not the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, the very same which he compos'd. The same Judgment is to be given of the Benedictionaries, which are as different as the Copies of them.

I shall not stay to refute a fabulous Story related by St. John Damascent, which is famous among the Greeks; That St. Gregory going into a publick place, and seeing a Statue of Trajan who was leap∣ing off his Horse to hearken to a Widow, was so mov'd with the goodness of this Action, that he pray'd to God for the repose of his Soul, and obtain'd his Salvation. This Fable, which had deceiv'd the People and the Devoto's for a time, is now become the Object of Laughter and Contempt to all those who have the least discretion. The Fact of Trajan, upon which it is founded, is not related by any of those who wrote the Roman History. In the time of St. Gregory the ancient Statues were not erected in the publick places of Rome, as formerly, and St. Gregory was too much perswaded that damned Infidels had no hopes of Salvation, to be so daring as to ask of God a thing so contra∣ry to his unalterable Laws: And therefore which way soever this Invention of the Modern Greeks be consider'd, 'tis equally indefensible. From whence it follows also, that we ought to reject a Re∣lation attributed to two Deacons of Rome, taken from a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, and prin∣ted at the end of St. Gregory's Letters, wherein 'tis suppos'd that the Story of the deliverance of Tra∣jan's Soul is true, and that St. Gregory was afflicted with continual sickness; during his Pontificat, for making this extraordinary Petition.

What we have said of the Works of St. Gregory, sufficiently discovers, that he had a Genius very proper for Morality, and that what he compos'd was an inexhaustible Fountain of Spiritual and Mo∣ral Thoughts: He expresses them after a very noble manner, and commonly includes them rather in grave Periods then witty Sentences. His 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are not very choice, neither is his Composure much laboured, but it is easie, coherent, and always uniform: He has nothing very sublime and lively, but what he says is true and solid. It is full of Common Places, and great Maxims: He is copi∣ous, and sometimes too long in the Explications of Morality, and too subtil in his Allego∣ries.

The Collection of his Works has been printed many times, at Lyons in 1516, 1539, 1540, at Pa∣ris by John Petit and Remboldus, in 1518. by Che•…•… in 1523. at R••an in 1521 by Regnaldus; at Paris by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1542. at Easte by Frobenius in 1564. at Answer•• by Plantin in 1572. at Venice in 1583. at Paris by N••ve•…•… in 1571, and in 1586. These Editions were follow'd by that of Rome in six Tomes which was begun in 1588, and finish'd in 1593. From these was made the Edition at Rome in Octavo, 1613. and those of Park in the Years 1605, and 1640.

The last Edition of the Works of St. Gregory was publish'd at Paris in 1675. It appear'd under the Name of Mr. Goussainville a Priest, but 'tis know that Dr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 took a great deal of pains in it. They had a great number of Manuscripts by which they might review all the Works. They distri∣buted them into three Tomes. The first contains the Morals, the Pastoral, the Homilies upon Eze∣kiel and upon the Gospels, together with the Lives of St. Gregory, written by Paul and John the Deacons, and the Testimonials of the Ancients. The second Tome contains the Dialognes, the Let∣ters accompanied with long and learned Notes, the Antiphonary, Sacramentary, and the Benedictio∣nary. The third Tome contains the Commentaries upon the Kings, the seven Psalms, and the Can∣ticles, attributed to St. Gregory, together with the Commentaries of Paterius upon the Holy Scrip∣ture, taken out of the Works of St. Gregory. The Prefaces which are prefixed at the begin∣ning of each Work, are short, useful, and well-written. The whole Edition is dedicated to my Lord Louis de Bassompiere then Bishop of Santones; a Prelat who perfectly imitated the ver••••ues of St. Gregory, who practis'd exactly according to the Rules which this great Pope prescribed to Pa∣stors, and who had all the Qualifications which he requires in Bishops. For after he had pass'd his first years in Retirement, and lead that part of his Life free from Crimes, wherein the greater part of young People are engag'd in worldly Pleasures; he was nam'd when he thought little of it, to the Bishoprick of Santones. His design was to refuse it, but being as it were forc'd to accept of it, he thought of nothing more then discharge his Office: For accomplishing this design, he aban∣don'd the Court and Secular Affairs, to retire into his Diocese, that he might apply himself wholly

to the Government of that Flock which Providence had entrusted to him. Afterwards he had favou∣rable opportunities of encreasing his Fortune in the World, and of advancement to Churches more * 1.110 beneficial and considerable, but he shun'd them with the same precipitation that others run after them. He was observ'd to fly away quickly, at a time when the Affairs of his Diocese oblig'd him to stay at Paris, because a Report went about, that some had cast an Eye upon him, to give him a place which would engage him to live at a greater distance from his Church, or to accept of another. 'Tis very well known with what prudence he govern'd his People in the most difficult times, with what Discretion he continued in his Duty of Loyalty to his Prince with what Meekness hereclaim'd a great number of Hereticks to the Church, with whom his Diocese was fill'd when he entred into it. All the World did equally experience his Goodness, his Moderation and Easiness. Great Persons had always occasion to praise him for his Civility and Inferior. Persons for his Charity. He distributed his Goods to the Poor with so much Liberality, that oftentimes he reserved nothing to himself. He gave considerable Alms to poor Gentlemen, and to Families that were in want, without letting them know to whom they were oblig'd for the Relief. He did so industriously conceal the Good that he did, that those who came nearest to him could hardly perceive it; and if it happen'd that they did discover it, he strictly charg'd them to tell no body. Sometimes he would feign by a pious fraud, that the Alms which he gave was a Debt, that those who receiv'd it might not be asham'd to take it. He never heard any speak of a Quarrel, Difference, on Suit, against any Person in his Diocese but he us'd his utmost endeavours to accommodate it; and as he was of a sweet and obliging Disposition, and had a brisk and sharp Wit, he did almost always succeed in them to the Content of all Parties. He lov'd Order and Discipline, yet was never severe or morose. He treated his Priests as his Bre∣thren, and hated an imperious and domineering Spirit. He vigorously maintain'd the Dignity of Bishops, and could not endure to see it any ways diminish'd. He defended the Truth, and the Rights of Episcopacy stoutly, but humbly. He would never engage himself into any Party in the Disputes which were manag'd with so much heat in his Life-time among Divines, and behav'd himself with so much Prudence, that both Parties were satisfy'd with his Conduct. Lastly, at his death, he gave signs of a great Abstraction from the World, and left the Poor his only Heirs. There remains now an illustrious Monument of this great Prelat: 'Tis a Treatise written in the form of a Dialogue, a∣bout cutting off some Festivals, printed by his own Order in 1670. He lays down there Principles so solid, and discovers so great strength of Reason and Learning, that I doubt not but all those who read it, will have as great an Idea of his Learning, as those that knew him had of his Holiness. I know that this Digression is a little remote from my Subject; but I hope the Reader will easily par∣don me, that I have taken this occasion to do Justice to the Memory of a Prelat who deserves to be famous to future Generations.

PATERIUS.

PAterius a Disciple of St. Gregory and Notary of the Church of Rome, made a Collection of Testimonies out of St. Gregory, wherein he explains passages of Scripture, and ranks them ac∣cording to the Order of the Holy Books: He compos'd three Books of Explications, two upon the Books of the Old Testament, and the third upon those of the New. This Collection was subjoyn'd to the Works of St. Gregory in the Roman Edition of them, and in those which follow'd after it: But it was compos'd only of two Books, viz. of the first, which is upon the Books of the Old Testament as far as the Canticles, and of the third upon the Books of the New Testament. That which should be the second is not in these Editions, nor in the greatest part of the Manuscripts. But Fa∣ther Oudinus assures us, that he saw it in a Manuscript of the Library of the Celestines. This Work being only an Extract out of the Books of St. Gregory, 'tis not necessary to say any thing more of it.

St. LEANDER Bishop of Sevil.

ST. Leander, Son of Severianus of the Province of Carthage in Spain, after he had profess'd a Mo∣nastical Life, was promoted to the Bishoprick of Sevil. He had so much Eloquence, so much Address, * 1.111 and Wit and Learning, that he brought back into the bosom of the Church the Goths who were engag'd in the Arian Faction. He was sent to Constantinople in the quality of Ambassador from his King to the

Emperor Tiberius, where he contracted, a•• we have already said, a friendship with St. Gregory. He compos'd many Works, of which here follows the Catalogue which Isidore has left us. He wrote, says he, * 1.112 in the time of his Journey two Books against Heretical Doctrines, wherein there appear'd great knowledge of the Scripture. There he discovers and confounds with great earnestness the Errors of the Arians, by showing what the Church teaches in opposition to them, and wherein it differs from them in its Doctrine and in its Mysteries. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••lso another little Work against the Arians, wherein he relates their Ob∣jections, and subjoyns Answers to them. He compos'd also a Treatise address'd to his Sister Florentina, concerning the Instruction of Virgins and Contempt of the World. He was very industrious and careful about the Offices of the Church, for he made two Editions of the Psalms with the Prayers, and compos'd Songs suitable to the Prayers and the Psalms which are repeated at the Sacrifice. He address'd many Letters to Pope Gregory. There is one about Baptism, another address'd to his Brother, wherein he admonishes him, that he must not fear death; and many familiar Letters to his Friends, which are not written in lofty words, but are made up of spiritual Thoughts. He flourish'd and died under King Reccaredus. This is what Isidore informs us concerning the Life and Works of St. Leander.

We have now nothing remaining but his Letter to his Sister Florentina, which is in the third part of the Code of the Rules of Benedict of Aniana: 'Tis a very wise and useful Rule for Nuns. The style of it is concise and short; He affects to speak by way of Sentences, which are adorn'd with Antitheses, and words whose termination and cadence are the same at every part of a Period. There is also a Harangue of this Saint, about the Conversion of the Goths, which he spoke after the third Council of Toledo, at the end of which it is to be found.

LICINIANUS and SEVERUS Bishops of Spain.

THese are two Bishops of Spain mention'd by Isidore in these following words: Licinianus Bishop of Carthage in Spain was learned in the Holy Scripture. We have read some of his Letters; where∣of there is one about the Sacrament of Baptism, and many written to Eutropius Bishop of Valentia; but the other Fruits of his Labour and Industry are not come to our hands. He flourish'd in the time of the Emperor Mauritius; and died at Constantinople, being poyson'd by his Enemies.

Severus Bishop of Malaga, a Friend and Collegue of Licinianus, wrote a little Treatise against Vin∣centius Bishop of Saragosa, who had deserted the Catholick Faith, and was fall'n into the Error of the Arians. He wrote also a Letter of Virginity to his Sister, entituled, The Ring. We know nothing but the Title of it, therefore cannot tell how it is written. He flourish'd and died under the same Em∣peror.

DINAMIUS.

SIgibert of Gemblours places Dinamius among Ecclesiastical Writers, to whom he gives the Title of Illustrious and Noble; and he says, that he wrote the Life of St. Marius, Abbot of a Monaste∣ry in the Valley of the Vaudois. We have an Abridgment of the Life of this Abbot in the first Bene∣dictine * 1.113 Age of Mr. Mabillon, p. 105. and there is also the Life of Maximus Abbot of Lerina, which is related by Surius, and attributed to Dinamius. St. Gregory has written two Letters, 33. Ind. 11. 33. Ind. 15. to Dinamius a Noble-man in Gaul, and Governor of Marseilles. We learn also from St. Gregory, that he joyn'd his House to a Monastery, in honour of St. Cassianus, B. 6. Ep. 12. Ind. 15. This Dinamius died in 601, as appears by Letter 70 of B. 9. of St. Gregory, written to his Bro∣ther Aurelius to comfort him upon his death. Therefore Dinamius, who under Childebert the second, plac'd two Bishops against the King's will, one at Uretia, and the other at Marseilles, as is report∣ed in Gregory of Tours, B. 6. Hist. c. 7. was different from this Dinamius. Whether of the two is the Author of these Lives, if the same Person be the Author of them both, or if one is the Author of the Life of Marius, and the other of that of Maximus, is very difficult to divine.

EUTROPIUS. * 1.114

EUtropius Bishop of Valentia in Spain, while he was yet an Abbot of a Monastery, wrote a very use∣ful Letter to the Bishop of Licimanus, of whom we have spoken, wherein he enquires of him, Why the Unction of Chrysm is given to Infants who are baptiz'd. He wrote also a Letter to Peter Bishop of Iturbica, concerning the Distinction of Monks, which contains wholesome Advices, and very useful for them. These are the words of St. Isidore in his Book of Illustrious Men, Chap. 32. The last of these two Letters was publish'd by Holstenius, in the Addition to the Code of the Rules of Be∣nedict of Aniana. It is not entituled, De Distinctione Monachorum, as is noted in the Text of Isi∣dore, which probably is corrupted, but De Districtione Monachorum & ruina Monasteriorum. There he shows that the Monks must be reprov'd with candor, and oblig'd to observe their Rule with ex∣actness and rigor. This Letter is written in a very plain style.

MAXIMUS Bishop of Saragosa.

THis Bishop was present at the Councils of Barcelona in 590, of Toledo in 610, and of Egara in 614. St. Isidore says, that he compos'd many Works in Prose and Verse; That he wrote a * 1.115 short History of the Transactions in Spain in the time of the Goths, and that he also wrote many o∣ther things which Isidore had never seen.

EUSTRATIUS Priest of Constantinople.

WE shall conclude this Age with some Greek Authors, mention'd by Photius, who may be thought to have liv'd at the same time, altho Photius does not distinctly set it down. * 1.116

The first is Eustratius a Priest of the Church of Constantinople, who wrote a Treatise of the Souls of the Dead, of which Photius gives the following Judgment, in Code 171 of his Biblio∣theque.

His style, says he, is not much to be valued, but his Thoughts are not altogether to be blam'd: He is clear in what he says. He proposes to himself three things. First to prove that Souls are Active after their separation from the Body, not only the Souls of the blessed, but generally of all Men, and that they act differently, according to the difference of their Merits: That those who appear in diffe∣rent Forms discover themselves in their Nature, and that 'tis not only the Divine Power which makes them appear invisible shapes, since it is not necessary to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Figures and Representations which are fram'd by this Power, for the Souls done can by themselves do what pleases God. After he has endeavour'd to prove these two Points by passages of holy Scripture and the Fathers, he lab••••••'s to show that the Sacrifices and Oblations which the Priests make for those who die in the faith of the Church, as well as the Prayers and Alms which are made for them, are profitable to the Sal∣vation and Pardon of their Sins, for whom they are offer'd: That the Custom is to offer them at the end of three days after Death, in memory of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, at the end of nine days, because Jesus Christ discover'd himself to his Disciples on the ninth day after his Resurrection; and lastly, at the end of forty days, because after this number of days Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven. This Work was publish'd by Allatius in his Treatise of Purgatory.

ANDRONICIANUS. * 1.117

I Have read, says Photius, in Code 45. two Books of Andronicianus against the Eunomians. He promises very much in his Prefaces, but he does not perform what he promises, particularly in the second Book. He had the Civility, the Wit and way of writing of a Philosopher, and was a Christian by Religion. There is no Work of his now remaining.

LUCIUS CHARINUS.

THis Author wrote a Book, entituled, The Travels of the Apostles, containing the Actions of St. Peter, St. John, St. Andrew, St. Thomas, and St. Paul, whose style and relation do equally deserve con∣tempt, * 1.118 in the Judgment of Photius, Code 144. His Style was unequal, his Words vulgar, and his Discourse very remote from the native candor and simplicity of Apostolical Relations. He was full of Stories stuff'd with folly and impiety. He seigns that the God of the Jews was a God of wickedness, to whom Simon the Magician was a Minister; That on the contrary, Christ is a God of Goodness. He gives him some times the Title of Father, some times that of Son. He ima∣gines that he was not truly made Man, but only in appearance. He says that he appear'd to his Disciples under different shapes, sometimes as an old Man, sometimes as a young Man, sometimes as an Infant, sometimes great and sometimes little, sometimes as high as Heaven, and sometimes creeping upon the Earth. He vents many fooleries concerning the Cross, and affirms, that ano∣ther was crucified for Jesus Christ. He condemns Marriage, and looks upon Generation as the Work of the Devil. He reckons up several Resurrections of Men, of Oxen, &c. He seems to blame the use of Images, as did the Iconoclasts. In a word, says Photius, the whole Book contains nothing but things childish and prodigious, malicious Fables, Falsities, Follies, Contradictions, and Impieties, insomuch that one may say, without deviating from the Truth, that this Book is the origine and sourse of all Heresies. He should rather have call'd it a Collection of the Follies and Impieties of the Ancient Hereticks.

METRODORUS.

THis Author had made a Cycle for the Celebration of the Feast of Easter, consisting of eight and twenty Cycles, nineteen Years a piece; beginning at Dioclesian, and continuing it for the * 1.119 space of five hundred thirty three years, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Feasts of Easter according to the Calculation of the fourteenth 〈◊〉〈◊〉, altho neither the Ancient Church, nor the Modern, says Photius, did al∣ways so exactly determine it. He did not know who this Author was, and when he wrote.

HERACLIANUS Bishop of Chalcedon.

THis Author compos'd twenty Books against the Manicheans. His style was concise, free from useless words, sublime, and of a neatness supported by the Majesty of the Expressions, be∣cause * 1.120 he mix'd the Attick Dialect with ordinary Discourse. He overthrows the Book which the Manichees call their Gospel, the Treatise of Gyants, and their Treasure. He mentions those who had written against these Hereticks before him, viz. Egemenius, who had written the Dispute of Arche∣laus against Manes; Titus, who thinking to refute Manicheus, had written against Addas; George of Laodicea, who had us'd the same Arguments with Titus; Serapion Bishop of Thumis, and Diodo∣rus

of Tarsus, who had opposed the Manicheans in a Work of five and twenty Books, in the seven first whereof he thought to attack their Gospel, altho he refuted the Book of Addas, to which they * 1.121 gave the Title of Measures. Heraclianus confirm'd in a few words what seem'd to him most weak in the Works of these Authors, supplied what appear'd to him forgotten, and repeated the best things they had said, adding to them what came into his own mind. This Author was nervous in his Reasons which he improv'd by the help of other Sciences. He overthrew the Fables of the Mani∣cheans, and refuted solidly their Errors. This Work was address'd to a Christian call'd Achillius by whom he was desir'd to refute in publick Writings the Heresie of the Manicheans which spread in the World. Photius has noted the Emperor under whom this Author liv'd, but he is not to be found among those that are printed. His Work is lost; we have taken what we have said out of Photius in Code 85.

LEONTIUS Bishop of Arabissa.

PHotius relates in Code 172. a part of this Author's Homily, which was entituled, Of the Crea∣tion and of Lazarus. The Fall of Adam, and his Punishment, are there described, to show the necessity of the Incarnation; and the Resurrection of Lazarus is there compar'd to the Joy which John felt in his Mother's Womb.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pope Sym∣machus.
• * 1.2

  Avitus Bi∣shop of Vienna.
• * 1.3

  Ennodius Bishop of Pavia.
• a 1.4

  Descended of an illustrious Family among the Gauls] says in many places of his Works, that his Parents were Gauls. He was a Kinsman to the greatest Lords in his time; as to Faustus, ••oetius, Avienus, Olybrius, Senarius, Florianus, &c.
• b 1.5

  In Italy] 'Tis certain that he pass'd his first years in Italy.
• c 1.6

  In the Year 473.] In the Panegyrick which he made upon Theodoric, he declares that he was six∣teen years old when that King entred into Italy in the Year 489.
• d 1.7

  About the Year 510] Father Labbe says that he was made Bishop of Pavia in 490, but this cannot be, since he was not then seventeeen years old. He was not yet Bishop when his Book was approv'd in the Synod of Rome in 503, for the Title of Bishop is not given him.
• * 1.8

  Hormisdas
• * 1.9

  Baronius calls him Joan. Ca∣tholicus.
• * 1.10

  S Fulgen∣tius.
• * 1.11

  Eugippius.
• * 1.12

  Ferrandus a Deacon.
• * 1.13

  John Maxenti∣us.
• * 1.14

  By the East here is to be understood the Em∣pire of the East, whereof Scythia was one Province.
• * 1.15

  They were a sort of Officers chosen by the Pope out of the Clergy, to defend and take care of the Patri∣mony of the Roman Church.
• * 1.16

  Trifolius.
• * 1.17

  Adrianus.
• * 1.18

  Lauren∣tius.
• * 1.19

  Marcelli∣nus.
• * 1.20

  Giles the Abbot.
• * 1.21

  Orentius.
• * 1.22

  Boetius.
• * 1.23

  Epiphani∣us Schola∣stieus.
• * 1.24

  Theodorus the Rea∣der.
• * 1.25

  Severus.
• * 1.26

  John of Scythopo∣lis.
• * 1.27

  Basil of Cilicia.
• * 1.28

  John I. Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.29

  Felix IV. Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.30

  Bonif. II. Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.31

  John II. Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.32

  Agapetus Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.33

  St. Ephrem Patriarch of Anti∣och.
• * 1.34

  Procopius of Gaza.
• * 1.35

  The Ano∣nymous Author of an Expo∣sition of the Octa∣teuque.
• * 1.36

  The Monk Jobitus.
• * 1.37

  Justinian
• * 1.38

  Di•…•… Exiguns▪
• * 1.39

  Cassiodorus
• * 1.40

  S. Benedict
• * 1.41

  In these words Cas∣siodorus plainly as∣serts, that there are only two different states after this Life, the one of a joyful, and the other of a sorrowful expectation of a future Judgment, and that these two states are immutable, since good Souls are reserv'd with Joy, and wicked Souls with Sorrow to the Sentence of the last Day: And so they plainly exclude the Romish Purgatory, which is a state of Sorrow after this Life from which some Souls are deliver'd at last, to a state of endless Joy.
• * 1.42

  Pope Sil∣verius.
• * 1.43

  The Pope Vigilius.
• * 1.44

  Caesarius Bishop of Arles
• * 1.45

  Pontianus.
• * 1.46

  Leo Arch-bishop of Sens.
• * 1.47

  Trojanus Bishop of Santones.
• * 1.48

  Nicetius Bishop of Treves.
• * 1.49

  Aurelia∣nus.
• * 1.50

  Terradius.
• * 1.51

  Arator.
• * 1.52

  Justinia∣nus and Justus Bi∣shops of Spain.
• * 1.53

  Aprigius.
• * 1.54

  Aretas.
• * 1.55

  Zacharias Bishop of Mitylena.
• * 1.56

  Cyrillus of Scythopolis
• * 1.57

  Facundus.
• * 1.58

  This is a notable place a∣gainst Transub∣stantiation which Du Pin found too hot for his handling, or else he had never sent us to another for satisfaction, af∣ter he had so clearly propos'd the Argument of Facundus in its full force.
• * 1.59

  Victor of Capua.
• * 1.60

  Rusticus Deacon of the Church of Rome.
• * 1.61

  Primasius.
• * 1.62

  Junilius.
• * 1.63

  Liberatus.
• * 1.64

  Victor of Tunona.
• * 1.65

  Pauluus Silentia∣rius.
• * 1.66

  Pelagius I.
• * 1.67

  Agnellus.
• * 1.68

  Leontius.
• * 1.69

  This passage plainly contra∣dicts Transub∣stantiation by saying that it is Bread which is offer'd, af∣ter conse∣cration, to represent Jesus Christ and comparing it with common Bread; and tho it be spoken by a Heretick, yet it is not censur'd neither by Le∣ontius here who writes severely against all his particular Errors, nor by any other Catholick Writer, which shows that it was a Doctrine then commonly receiv'd, or at least it was not thought a dangerous Error, and much less a Heresy.
• * 1.70

  Fortuna∣tus.
• * 1.71

  Bandoni∣nia.
• * 1.72

  St. Germa∣nus Bishop of Paris.
• * 1.73

  Martinus of Braca∣ra.
• * 1.74

  Paschasius
• * 1.75

  Joannes Scholasti∣cus Patri∣arch of Constanti∣nople.
• * 1.76

  Gregory of Tours.
• * 1.77

  Gildas.
• * 1.78

  Evantius.
• * 1.79

  Ferreolus.
• * 1.80

  Sedatus and Chry∣sippus.
• * 1.81

  Pelag. II.
• * 1.82

  Eulogius.
• * 1.83

  John the Faster.
• * 1.84

  John of Biclarum.
• * 1.85

  Anastasius Sinaita.
• * 1.86

  Here the Cup is cal∣led Wine after Con∣s••cration.
• * 1.87

  Evagrius.
• * 1.88

  St. John Climacus.
• * 1.89

  John of Raithu.
• * 1.90

  St. Gregory
• * 1.91

  He calls this Title, Proud, He∣retical, Blasphe∣mous, An∣tichristian, and Dia∣bolical, Cave p. 430. which shows how far the Pope of Rome was then from assuming an Universal Supremacy over the Church.
• * 1.92

  The De∣fensores of St. Peter's Patrimony were cer∣tain Offi∣cers ap∣pointed by Popes in the Provinces, for maintaining and taking care of the Patrimony of the Roman Church; which Offi∣cers were afterwards appointed for Parochial Churches, and are now call'd Churchwardens, Spelm. Gloss.
• * 1.93

  Dalmati∣ca is a long white Gar∣ment, without sleeves, set off with Purple∣knaps. Spelm. Gloss.
• * 1.94

  This was his submis∣sion to Princes that he basely fawn'd up∣on Phocas a Parracide and Usurper, and bitterly reproach'd the Memory of his Liege Lord Mauritius, Cave, p. 431.
• * 1.95

  [This is expresly contrary to the Council of Trent, Sess 25. which declares that Images are to be plac'd in Churches, and to be worship'd there; and to the com∣mon Doctrine of Romish Writers now, who allow at least of Relative Worship to be given them.]
• a 1.96

  St Gregory in Letter 30 of Book 9 Ind. 1. written to Eulogius, says, That he was ordain'd by the Bishops of Germany to whom he had given leave: Data à me licentiâ à Germaniarum Episcopis, Episcopus factus. Bede assures us that he was ordain'd by Aethe∣rius ••p. of Arles; he should have said Virgilius ••p. of Arles, or Aetherius ••p. of Lyons; for at this time the B. of Arles was called Virgilius, and of Lyons Aetherius. The Authority of B••de made Baronius believe, that there was a fault in the Letter of St. Gregory, and that it should be read Galliarum instead of Germaniarum; Others think that Bede was mistaken, and that ac∣cording to St. Gregory, Austin was ordain'd by the Bishops of the Provinces of Germany upon the Rhin••; But 'tis more probable that he intended the Provinces upon the Roan, to which the Name of Germany was sometimes given; because they were inhabited by the Burgundians, who were originally Germans. We have Examples of this in Sidonius Apollinaris, who calls the Kingdom of Chilperic▪ whereof the Capi∣tal City was ••yons, Lugdumensem Germaniam. B 5. Ep. 7. And writing to Siagrius who dwelt at Lyons, he praises him for understanding the Language of the Germans, i. e. of the Burgundians, who re∣main'd at Lyons. St. Austin therefore being or∣dain'd by Aetherius Bishop of Lyons, St. Gregory might say that he was ordain'd by the Bishops of Ger∣many.
• * 1.97

  [This shows that the first conversion England was not owing to Austin and the Monks sent by Pope Gregory, for many years before their coming, this Queen call'd ••er∣tha, was married to King Ethelbert upon Condition that he would suffer her to enjoy the Christian Religion, and to have a Bishop to attend her, whose name was Luid-hardus, Bede Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 25. Malmsbur. de Gestis Reg. Angl. l. 1. c. 1.]
• * 1.98

  In Matth. ch. 25 In Mark ch. 22.
• * 1.99

  [This was to give Au∣stin what he had no power to grant, like some of his Successors in that See, who very liberally bestow'd the Kingdom of England and Ireland upon the King of Spain, and therefore this pretended Jurisdiction of the Pope was vigorously oppos'd by the British Bishops and Monks in Austin's time, who resus'd to receive any Romish Customs different from those of their own Church, as appear'd by the famous Controversie between them about the time of keeping Easter; and the right of imposing them has been sufficiently disprov'd by our Writers. Vide Dr. Basire of the Exemption of the British Patriar∣chate.]
• a 1.100

  The style] The Inscription of it is harsh and unusual: It is address'd pretiosissimis lapidibus merito renitentibus, omnibusque sanctae Dei Ecclesiae membris. Did ever one see the like Address? There the Title of Servus Servorum Dei, is given to St. Grego∣ry: But then the Addition to it is affected, Licet sanctae Romanae sedis Pontificio sublimetur. In the bo∣dy of the Priviledge, there is an infinite number of barbarous and new Expressions, as Suessorum civitas, vitae venerabilis Gairaldus, Dominus Papa Joannes, nostrae filie jugalis Dominus Medardus. Can there be any thing more impertinent then what they make St. Gregory there say? Consensu omnium Romanorum Pontificum, & voluntate totius Senatus Romani De∣cernimus. Is this capable of any good sense? The Rents and Lands of the Church are call'd there Man∣si, fisci regii. A man must set down this whole Pri∣viledge, to make one well understand the Forgery of it; for as many words as there are in it, so many proofs there are of its being supposititious.
• b 1.101

  Indefersible] There the Monks are empower'd to ordain their Abbot, and the Abbot to consecrate the holy Chrism, the Challces and the Altars: The Mo∣nastery is exempted from all Jurisdiction Secular and Ecclesiastical, except the King's Protection, and the Direction of the Holy See; and that it might more easily hold correspondence with Rome, 'tis said, that Queen Brun••haud gave to the Monastery twenty Man∣nors, and as many Farms along the Alps. 'Tis or∣der'd that all those who shall come to dwell upon the Lands of St. Medardus, shall be deliver'd from all subjection, and become Slaves to the Virgin; that those who shall take sanctuary there, shall be reputed slaves of the Church. Lastly, exorbitant Priviledges are given to the Abbot.
• c 1.102

  Contrary to History] That the Church of St. Medardus, was call'd formerly the Church of the Virgin, of St. Peter, and St. Stephen; that it was a Monastery in the time of St. Gregory.
• d 1.103

  By so great a number of Bishops] There St. Gre∣gory signs first: But it was not the custom of Popes then to sign their own Letters; neither is there any Example of it in St. Gregory. The second is Euthe∣rius of Arles: But there was never a Bishop of Arles of that name, and Virgilius was then Bishop: Aethe∣rius was Bishop of Lyons: The third is, Gregory Bishop of Portus: And there is another Bishop of Portus, called Felix. The fourth is Andrew of Alba∣•…•…; but in 595 it was Homobonus, who sign'd in the Council of Rome held this year: And there was one Andrew Bishop of this place under Gregory the second. The fifth is Austin Bishop of Canterbury; but he was not yet Bishop, for this Priviledge is da∣ted in the year 594 Afterwards there is Sergius Bi∣shop of Praeneste; but at the Roman Council in 595, Proculus was Bishop of this City. In the same year the Bishop of Anania was called Pelagius, and not Peter, as he is here call'd. Agnellus Bishop of Sutri∣um govern'd this See under Gregory the second. Mel∣litus was not yet Bishop of London, for he was not Ordain'd till 604. The other Names are taken from the Titles of St Gregory's Letters, or the Subscripti∣ons of the Roman Council in 595, or from the Coun∣cil held under Gregory the second. Eulogius of Alex∣andria is among the Bishops that sign'd: But he ne∣ver came to Rome, and 'tis no way probable that this Instrument should be carried to him to sign it, which no ways concern'd him, no more then it did Domi∣nicus Bishop of Carthage. Among the Bishops of France there is found a Bishop of Bourdeaux call'd Su∣tellius: But the Bishop then was Gondegisilas, as ap∣pears by St. Gregory of Tours: B. 8. Hist. 2 c. 22. The Archbishop of Rhemes was call'd Romulphus, and not Flavius, as he is here set down. The Bishop of Soissons was call'd Droctegifilas in 592. Greg. Tur. B. 9▪ c. 37. Ansericus was in the time of the Synod of Rhemes under Sonnatius in 630. Lastly, King Theodo∣ricus, whose Subscription is here, was then but two years old, and his Father Childebert was yet alive. There is one Peter who sign'd, and is said to have seal'd this Instrument, whereas at that time no seal∣ing was in use.
• a 1.104

  Of little Credit] 'Tis said in this Relation, that St. Leander carried into Spain his Copy of the Books of St. Gregory upon Job: But it appears by the Let∣ters of St. Gregory, that he himself sent it to him. 2. 'Tis no ways probable that the Pope would refuse Tagion a Copy of St. Gregory's Morals. 3. 'Tis also said in this Relation, that Tagion enquir'd of St. Gre∣gory where St. Austin was, and that he answer'd him, That he was not among the Successors of St. Peter and St. Paul, whom he came to see, but in a higher place. This Reflexion, the Vision, and the whole History smells strong of a Fable.
• b 1.105

  Ordination] The Council of Tours 3d. held under Charlemagne in the Year 81••. Can. 3. Nulli E∣piscopo liceat Canones, aut librum Pastoralis Curae, à B. Gregirio Papa editum, si fieri potest, ignorare, in qui∣bus se debet unusquisque quasi in quodam speculo, assidue considerare. The Council of Chalons the second held under the same Emperor, ordains, Episcopi Canones intelligant, & librum B. Gregorii De Cura Pastorali, & secundum formam ihidem constitutam, doceant & praedicent. Council the second of Aix la Chapelle un∣der Lewis the Debonaire, held in the Year 836, Counc. 4. Convenit Sacerdotali Ministerio scire formam Evan∣gelicam, & Monumenta Apostolica, Canonum Instituta, Norma•• Regulae Pastoralis, à sanctissime Pontifice Gre∣gorio editam, ne juxta eundem sanctissimum virum, ab imperitis, quod absit Pastorale Magisterium aliqua te∣meritate usurpetur, aut vilescat. They us'd it for Re∣forming Discipline, at the Council of Mayence, in the Year 813, and in the second Council of Rhemes, Can. 10. In the sixth Council of Paris held in 829, 'tis ordain'd that the Advices which St. Gregory has given in this Pastoral should be exactly follow'd.
• a 1.106

  He himself owns them] In Letter 50 of B. 2. Ind. 11. he desires of Maximian a History of the Abbot Nonnosus, that he may insert them into his Book of the Miracles of the Fathers. In Ch. 7. of B. 1. of his Dialogues, he relates the History of Nonnosus, and says that he learn'd it from Maximian: And in many of his Homilies you may find the same Histories, which are related in these Dialogues in the same words.
• b 1.107

  His Disciples] Paterius Secretary to St. Grego∣ry, in the Collection which he made out of this Fa∣ther's Works, recites a great number of passages ta∣ken out of the Dialogues: Some of them also may be seen in the Collection of Yaius Bishop of Saragosa, who liv'd in 630. Ildefonsus of Toledo ranks this Work amongst St. Gregory's. Hilary of Toledo, Bede, Paul the Deacon, John the Deacon, Hadrian the first, Ana∣stasius the Library-keeper, Alcuinus, Hincmarus, Pas∣chasius, and Prudentius quote it; Photius speaks of it. I say nothing of an infinite number of later Authors.
• * 1.108

  [But this being only a Pur∣gation of light and venial sins, is not such a Purgato∣ry as is as∣serted by the Coun∣cil of Trent, Sess 6. Can. 30. which is the tem∣poral pain of mortal sins, whose eternal punishment is remitted. And in other places of his Works, Pope Gregory does expresly deny any change of state af∣ter this life, as particularly his Morals on Job l. 8. c. 8. Ed. Bas. where he says, That at the time of death either the good or e∣vil Spirit seizeth upon the Soul, and keeps it with it for ever without any change; and therefore if he be consistent with himself, the Purgation which he speaks of Dial. 4. c. 39. must be consistent with a state of Joy, especially since he adds in that same Chapter, Persons shall be at the day of Judgment, as they were when they went out of this world.]
• † 1.109

  [In this also Pope Gregory contradicts the Council of Trent, which declares, Sess. 22. c. 2. That this Sacrifice is offer'd not only for the sins of the living,—but also for those who are dead in Christ, not yet fully purged from their sins. But Pope Gregory supposes those to be in a state of bliss for whom the Oblation was made at the Altar, as appears by the Sa∣cramentry IV. Kalend Julii, where the Oblation is first mention'd, and after follows, O. God, who has bestow'd the reward of eternal happiness upon the Soul of thy Servant Leo; for such a Soul being in a state of eternal bliss, was certainly fully purg'd from its sins, tho the Sacrifice was offer'd for it at the Altar]
• * 1.110

  Paterius.
• * 1.111

  St. Lean∣der Bishop of Sevel.
• * 1.112

  Licinia∣nus and Severus Bishops of Spain.
• * 1.113

  Dinamius.
• * 1.114

  Eutropius.
• * 1.115

  Maximus Bishop of Saragosa.
• * 1.116

  Eustratius Priest of Constanti∣nople.
• * 1.117

  Androni∣cianus.
• * 1.118

  Lucius Charinus.
• * 1.119

  Metrodo∣rus.
• * 1.120

  Heracli∣nus Bishop of Chalce∣don.
• * 1.121

  Leontius Bishop of Arabissa.