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 Ecclesiastical History OF THE First three Centuries of CRISTIANITY. CONTAINING An Account of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the Primitive FATHERS, with Censures upon all their BOOKS, determining which are Genuine, and which Spurious.

Of the Letter supposed to be sent by Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, and of that of Agbarus to Jesus Christ.

EUsebius gives us an Account in the first Book of his History, of a certain King of Edessa a 1.1, named Agbarus b 1.2, who having heard the report of the Miracles that were wrote * 1.3 by Jesus Christ, sent a Letter to him, the purport whereof was, To intreat him to Cure a Distemper with which he was afflicted: And that our Saviour did not then grant his Request, but wrote a Letter back to him, wherein he promised to send one of his Disciples to heal him: and lastly, that St. Thomas the Apostle, immediately after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, deputed Thaddeus one of the 72 Disciples, who went and performed the Promise that had been made by our Saviour to Cure his Disease, and at the same time Converted him, together with his whole Family. Eusebius grounds this Story upon the Letters of Jesus Christ and Agbarus, which were taken out of the Archives of the Church of Edessa, which he likewise produ∣ceth Translated out of Syriack into Greek. Now it is probable, that Eusebius credited those Re∣cords that were exhibited to him too easily, as also, that these Letters are forged, and that this whole History is fabulous. For first, how can it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 imagined that the King of Edessa, upon the bare re∣hearsal of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, should address himself to him, as one that was convinced of his Divinity, and instructed in the Principles of his Religion: Having heard (says he) of the Mira∣cles which thou hast wrought, I am persuaded that thou art God, or the Son of God. It is evident, that these words could not be written but by a Person already perswaded and trained up in the Doctrine of Christianity, who makes Agbarus speak almost the same Expressions as he himself would have used on the like occasion. The following Words that are likewise attributed to this King; viz. That be∣ing informed, that the Jews laid Sna••rs for Jesus Christ, he designed to molest them, and invited him to come to his City, which, although it were small, might be sufficient for them both, more clearly demon∣strate the falshood of this Letter: For who can believe, that a King should offer the Moiety of his Kingdom at once to a Man that was altogether unknown to him?

Neither is it more difficult to discover the forging of the other Letter that is attributed to Jesus Christ, beginning with these words; Thou art happy, Agbarus, for having believed in me, without see∣ing me; for it is written of me, That they that see me shall not believe in me, to the end, that they that believe on me without seeing me may receive Eternal Life. To what purpose are these Words written? Is it not apparent, that he that composed this Letter alludes to the expression of Jesus Christ to St. Thomas, Happy are they that have not seen and yet have believed? Which Words being not spoken by our Saviour till after his Resurrection, nor written till a long time after, it evidently appears that this Letter is counterfeit.

The History, which is afterwards produced concerning these two Letters, and taken from the same Archives, is no less fabulous. It is reported that Jude the Apostle c 1.4, who is also called Thomas, sent Thaddeus the Apostle, one of the 72 Disciples, to King Agbarus: That this Prince, being in∣formed that there was a Man in his City that wrought many Miracles, and doubting whether he were not the Disciple whom Jesus Christ had promised to send, gave orders to one named Tobias to bring him into his Presence: And that he had no sooner seen him, but his Countenance seeming to him to be Divine, he prostrated himself at his Feet to worship him, desiring to know, whether he were that Disciple whom Jesus Christ had promised to send to cure his Distemper. Thaddeus having answered that he was, and that if he believed in Jesus Christ he should be saved, Agbarus replied, I have be∣lieved so firmly in him, that I included to pr•…•… War against the Jews who Crucified him, and utterly to destroy that Nation; if the fear of the Roman Empire had not deterred me from this Undertaking. Certainly the Person (whosoever he be) that caused this petty Prince of Edessa to utter these Words, was endued with very little judgment, in ascribing to him a Design so extravagant as this; for is it not an egregious piece of folly to imagine, that a Prince only of one single City should undertake to maintain a War against a Nation so powerful as that of the Jews, and should hope to destroy it, to revenge the Death of a Man, whom he knew only by hear-say. What probability is there, that no∣thing but the fear of the Romans was able to divert him from so rash an Attempt? I shall not pro∣ceed to make any Reflection on the other Circumstances of this Relation, which appear to be no less fabulous than those that we have even now recited: I shall only add, that the time wherein it is affirmed that those Occurrences happened, shews this whole History to be Supposititious. They take notice at the end of this Record, that these Things were Translated in the 430th Year of the Edes∣senian Aera, now the 430th Year of the Edessenians is the 15th of Tiberius, in which the Ancients be∣lieved that Jesus Christ died and rose again. And we must say according to this Epocha, and what we find recorded in the Acts, that this happened immediately after our Saviour's Resurrection, and that Agbarus, and several other Gentiles of Edessa, received the Gospel before Cornelius, which is plainly contrary to the Acts of the Apostles; and consequently we may be certain that this History is false, and that these Letters are forged. The Authority of Eusebius is not to be regarded in this case, since it is evident, that he hath too rashly given credit to the Memorials that were transmitted to him, taken from the Archives of the Church of Edessa. And none can be ignorant, that this sort of Records ought not too much to be relied on, especially with respect to Histories of such a nature.

But in regard that these Fables are always augmented in process of time, it hath been likewise feigned that Jesus Christ, in writing to Agbarus, sent him his Picture drawn on an Handkerchief. Evagrius is the first that makes mention of this Effigies in Book IV. Chap. 27. of his History, rely∣ing on the Authority of Procopius, who nevertheless takes no notice of this Relation. However since the time of Evagrius, the Defenders of Image Worship have often cited it, and the modern Greeks so firmly believed it, that they keep a Festival on the 16th of August in Commemoration thereof.

Of some Letters attributed to the Virgin Mary.

THere are several Letters likewise ascribed to the Virgin Mary, which being not so ancient as those of Jesus Christ to Agbarus, may more easily be proved to be false; the Letter of * 1.5 the Virgin Mary to St. Ignatius is supposititious, as we shall hereafter take an occasion to shew in discoursing concerning the Epistles of that Saint. That to the Florentines pub∣lished by Canisius, as also another which the Inhabitants of Messina pretend to keep in their Possessi∣on, have more evident Marks of their Falshood, and are generally rejected; insomuch that there is no necessity to prove them to be Apocryphal.

Of the Counterfeit Gospels.

NOthing more clearly evinceth the truth of this Maxim of Holy Scripture, That the Father of Lies often changes himself into an Angel of Light, than the great number of Books, that * 1.6 have been heretofore forg'd in imitation of the Sacred Writings. For as the Holy Ghost hath caused Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and a Revelation to be written, so in like manner the Devil to counterfeit the Truth, hath procur'd several Gospels, Acts, Revelations, and Epistles, to be devis'd by his Ministers, which have also been attributed to the Apostles. To begin with the

Gospels, besides the four that are Canonical and true, there were in the Primitive Ages of the Church several others that were fictitious and substituted in their room as well by the Hereticks as by some Catholicks.

Among these last, we may reckon the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and that according to the Hebrews which though spurious, yet have been quoted by Catholick Authors as Works compos'd by the Orthodox. The Gospel according to the Egyptians is cited by a 1.7 Clemens Alexandrinus, as also by Epiphanius b 1.8, who declares, that the Sabellians made use of this Gospel to confirm their Er∣ror, because it contain'd divers Mystical Expressions concerning Jesus Christ, some whereof might perhaps be applied by them to prove, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were but one Person.

The Gospel according to the Hebrews, written (as it is reported by St. Jerome) in the Syriack Tongue with Hebrew Characters is yet more remarkable among the Ancients; It is quoted by He∣gesippus c 1.9, by Ignatius d 1.10, by Clemens Alexandrinus e 1.11, and by Origen in several places, particularly in his Eighth Treatise on St. Matthew, where he produced a considerable Fragment out of it f 1.12. St. Jerome g 1.13 translated it into Greek and Latin, as he has often told us, observing likewise in one place, that some were of opinion, that this Gospel was the Original of St. Matthew's, which was reputed to have been written in Hebrew; nevertheless, it is certain, that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, was different from that of St. Matthew, as well on the account, that all those things which are related by the Ancient Writers concerning this Gospel, and among others the History of the Woman accused before Jesus Christ h 1.14 are not to be found in St. Matthew's Gospel, as in regard, that they are clearly distinguished by Eusebius and St. Jerome, who had a perfect knowledge of both those Gospels. Add to this, that St. Jerome translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews, whereas the Author of the Ver∣sion of St. Matthew's Gospel is unknown, and that in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Scri∣ptures of the Old Testament are cited according to the Hebrew Text, whereas St. Matthew in his hath followed the Translation of the Septuagint. This Gospel is not different from that which is called by Origen, the Gospel of the Twelve, nor from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, as appears from the Testimony of St. Jerome, by whom they are often confounded: Moreover the Ebionites made use thereof to prove their Doctrine.

Besides these two Gospels so often cited by the ancient Writers, that are lost, there is yet extant a Book, Entituled, Proto-Evangelium Jacobi, published by Neander, and inserted in the Orthodoxographa. This Book is full of idle Tales and frivolous Relations concerning i 1.15 the Nativity, Life, and Delivery of the Virgin Mary; The Gospel of Nicodemus likewise, annexed to that of St. James in the same

place, is equally full of Fables relating k 1.16 to the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the former is of those that belong to the Life of the Virgin Mary.

However, although those Gospels are unworthy of Credit because they are so foolish, yet they do not contain any gre••s E•…•…s, in those do that were forg'd by the Hereticks, no part whereof now remains in our possession; such were the Gospels a•…•…'d to St. Peter, to St. Thomas, and to St. Mat∣thias, mention'd by Eusebius, Book 3. Chap. 25. as also those of St. Bar•…•…ew, and of the Twelve Apostles, cited by St. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in his Preface to St. Matthew; The Gospel of Philip, which was that of the Gnosticks, (according to the Testimony of Epiphanius, Har. 26.) and was used by the Ebionites, Basilides, and Apelles. The Gospel of Jud•••• substituted by the G•…•…tes, who honour••d that Traitor, as St. Epiphanius and Theodoret assure us, when they speak of these Hereticks. And lastly, the Gos∣pels of Thaddeus, Barnabas, and Andrew, and those that were •…•…ted by Hesychius, together with a Book concerning the In••••ncy of Jesus Christ, and another relating to the Genealogy of the Virgin Mary, attributed to St. Matthew, and reckon'd by Gelas••••s in the number of Apocryphal Writings that were forg'd by Hereticks.

Of the counterfeit Acts of the Apostles, and of the false Revelations.

FOrasmuch as the Acts of St. Luke contain only a very small part of the Transactions of some of the Apostles, since he gives no account of the proceedings of all, neither doth he describe * 1.17 at large even all the Actions of those that are mentioned by him; They that applied them∣selves to the counterfeiting of these Records, were furnished with great variety of matter, wherein they might exercise their deoeitful Arts. The first that practised this Artifice, was a certain Priest, and a Disciple of St. Paul, who being inflamed with a false Zeal for his Master, forged under the name of St. Luke the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and was convicted of this Imposture by St. John, as we are assured by Tertullian, and after him by St. Jerome. However, the simplicity of this ancient Priest might be more easily excused, in regard that he had no ill design; but we cannot but be seized with horror when we reflect on the enormous practices of the Hereticks, who have presumed to write the Acts of divers Apostles at their pleasure, wherein they have obtruded their detestible Errors. Such were the Acts of St. Peter and St. Paul devised by the Manichees, and mentioned by Philastrius, in which the Apostles were introduced, aff••••ming, that the Souls of Men and of Beasts were of the saine nature, and working Miracles to cause Dogs and Sheep to speak: The Acts of St. Andrew, of St. John, and of the Apostles in general, substituted by the same Hereticks, according to the Testimony of St. Epi∣phanius, Philastrius, and St. Augustin a 1.18: The Acts of the Apostles counterfeited by the Ebionites, and cited by St. Epiphanius in his description of their Heresie: The Doctrine, Preaching, Voyages, and Disputes of St. Peter, falsely attributed to St. Clement, containing the Errors of the Ebionites, and the b 1.19 History of St. Paul's being snatched up into Heaven, being a Work compiled by the Gajanites; whereof the Gnosticks likewise made use, and St. Epiphanius assures us, Haeres. 8. The Acts of St. Phi∣lip, and of St. Thomas received among the Encratites and the Apostolicks, as is also observed by the same St. Epiphanius in Haeres. 47, and 61. The Memoirs of the Apostles invented by the Priscillianists: The Itinerary of the Apostles rejected in the second Council of Nice, Act. 5. to which may be added several false Relations, as that of the Lots of the Apostles rejected in the Decretal: The Writings of the Apostles compiled by Dictinius, and disallowed in the Synod of Braga, chap. 17. A Book of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, cited by Suidas, the Author whereof pretended to prove that our Saviour was descended from the Tribe of Levi, and that he was reckoned by the Jews among the Priests: A

Tract, Intituled, Liber Apostolicus, which was a Rhapsody devised by Marcion, and whereof St. Epi∣phanius makes mention: And a Book concerning the Death and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, ascribed to St. John; as also the Interrogations of the Blessed Virgin composed by the Gnosticks, toge∣ther with another Book, concerning her Genealogy, published by the same Authors.

Lastly, there are several counterfeit Apocalypses or Revelations, as the Revelations of the great A∣postle forged by Cerinthus: The Apocalypse of St. Peter, which Eusebius in Book 3. chap. 25. of his History reckons in the number of those spurious Books that are not Heretical, and which (as Sozomen affirms) was read every year about the time of Easter in the Churches of Palestine. And the Reve∣lation, or the Secerts of St. Paul, which was heretofore very much esteemed by the Monks: The Egy∣ptians (according to the Testimony of Sozomen) boasted that they had it in their possession, and it is inserted in the Catalogue of Apocryphal Books by Gelasius, together with the Revelations of St. Tho∣mas and St. Stephen. None of these Books are now extant, neither ought we to be troubled for their loss.

Of the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and some others attributed to St. Paul.

BEsides the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, some of the ancient Writers have likewise cited one directed to the Laodiceans, and indeed, we have at present an Epistle mentioned by St. An∣selm, * 1.20 S••xtus Senensis, and Stapulensis, which is inserted in some German Bibles a 1.21, and is written in St. Paul's Name to the Laodiceans. It is not certain whether this be the same with that which was used when St. Jerome lived b 1.22, however it is evident, that that which we now have in our possession, doth not appertain to St. Paul c 1.23, and that that which was extant in St. Jerome's time, was generally rejected, as he declares in his Catalogue; ab omnibus exploditur. That which gave oc∣casion to the forging of this Letter (as is observed by Theodoret) is, that St. Paul at the end of his Epi∣stle to the Colossians, exhorts them to cause the Epistle that he had sent to them to be read by the Lao∣diceans, and to read among themselves that from Laodicea; this hath induced some to believe, that there was an Epistle written to the Laodiceans at the same time with that to the Colossians; and this also gave Marcion the opportunity of altering the Title of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and giving it the name of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. But this error is founded on the ignorance of the Greek expression; for no mention is made in this place of any Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, but of one written from Laodicea. Some are of opinion that this is the Epistle to Timothy, which they imagine to have been written from that City. But it may be much more probably affirmed with St. Chrysostome, Theodoret, Photius, and Oecumenius, that it was an Epistle written to St. Paul from Laodicea, by the Christians of that City, and for this Reason it is called in the Vulgar Transla∣tion the Epistle of the Laodiceans.

Moreover, as it hath been concluded from this place in the Epistle to the Colossians mis-interpreted, that St. Paul wrote a Letter to the Laodiceans; so in like manner some have inferred, that he wrote a third Epistle to the Christians of Corinth, from a Passage taken out of his first Epistle to the Co∣rinthians, ch. 5. v. 9, 10, and 11. viz. I wrote unto you an Epistle, not to company with Fornicators, &c. But (as St. Chrysostom observes) this Epistle is the very same that he then wrote, and the sense is, When I even now wrote unto you in this Letter, not to keep company with Fornicators, I do not mean the Fornicators of this World.

Of the Epistle of St. Barnabas.

JOSEPH, Sirnamed by the Apostles 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that is to say, the Son of Consolation a 1.24, who was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Levite, and a Native of the Isle of Cyprus b 1.25, laboured even as much as the Apostles * 1.26 themselves in establishing the Foundation of the Christian Religion. Some of the ancient Wri∣t••••s c 1.27 affirm, that he was one of the 72 Disciples of Jesus Christ; but St. Luke makes menti∣on of him after such a manner, as induceth us rather to believe, that he was not admitted into the Fellowship of the Apostles until after our Saviour's Death. However it be, it is evident, that ever since that time he hath been reputed as one of the principal Preachers of the Gospel, and was deser∣vedly reckoned in the number of the Apostles. We have no certain account of his Life, but only what we find set down by St. Luke in the Acts.

He hath written (says St. Jerom,) an Epistle, which is full of Edification for the Church, although it be not Canonical: This Epistle is often cited by St. Clemens Alexandrinus d 1.28 and Origen e 1.29, who do not in the least doubt, but that it belongs to him whose Name it bears. It is true indeed that Eu∣sebius and St. Jerom place it in the Rank of Apocryphal Books f 1.30, nevertheless they do not deny that it was written by St. Barnabas; on the contrary they attribute it to him, declaring only, that it ought not to be esteemed of the same Authority as the Canonical Books, because although it really belongs to St. Barnabas, yet it is not generally received by the whole Catholick Church.

And it is upon this account that this Epistle is not amongst the Canonical Writings, because to cause a Book to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this Rank, it is not only sufficient that it was composed by an Apo∣stle, or a Disciple of the Apostles, but it is likewise requisite that it should be received as Canonical throughout all the Churches of Christ; otherwise the Treatise of Hermas, and the Epistle of St. Cle∣ment, ought also to be inserted in the Catalogue of Canonical Books. Therefore it is a very weak Argument to affirm, that the Epistle of St. Barnabas doth not appertain to this Apostle, because that if it were certainly his, it would have been reckoned in the number of the Canonical Writings; since before a Book can be owned as Canonical, it is necessary, whosoever is the Author thereof, that it should be acknowledged by the whole Church; because there are Books written by the Apostles, or their Disciples, that were not heretofore, and are not as yet placed in the Rank of Canonical Wri∣tings;

and on the contrary there are others, the Writers whereof are not certainly known, that have been formerly, and are now, inserted in the Canon of Holy Scripture, as in the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation; and several Books in the Old, the true Authors of which cannot be positively shewn. Besides, though it were true, that all Books are Canonical, which we know to have been written by Men who had Authority to make them so, yet who hath assured us, that St. Barnabas ought to be included in this number, rather than St. Clement, or Hermas? The Catholick Church hath a Right to declare it, and since she has not done it, this is a sufficient war∣rant to reckon his Epistle amongst the Apocryphal Writings, though it be really his.

Furthermore it hath been objected, that this Epistle is unworthy of St. Barnabas, and that it is not credible that so great an Apostle who was full of the Holy Ghost, and the Colleague of St. Paul, should be the Author of the most part of those things that are therein contained; such are the for∣ced Allegories, the extravagant and incongruous Explications of Holy Scripture, the various Fables concerning Animals, and several other Conceits of the like nature that are comprised in the first Part of this Epistle. To this I answer, That notwithstanding these Defects, St. Clement, Origen, Eusebius, and St. Jerom, attributed it unto him; and I am of the opinion, that it is a very great piece of Im∣pudence for any one to imagine himself to be more clear-sighted in this matter, than those exqui∣site Criticks of Antiquity: They lived much nearer the time of the Apostles than we do: They had a great number of Books composed by their Disciples which are now lost; and consequently, they were more capable than we are of judging of the Style and manner of Writing of the Apostles, and their Companions and Disciples. If then they have found that the Allegories, Mystical Explicati∣ons and Fables, that are found in the Epistle of St. Barnabas might be his, with what right can we positively assert, that they cannot be his? Certainly they must needs have but a very little know∣ledge of the Genius of the Jewish Nation, and of the Primitive Christians that were Educated in the Synagogue, who obstinately believe that these sort of Notions could not proceed from them; on the contrary, this was their Character: They had learned of the Jews to turn the whole Scripture into Allegory, and to make Remarks on the peculiar Properties of those Living Creatures that were prohibited to be eaten; therefore it is not to be admired that St. Barnabas, being by Nation a Jew, and writing to his own Countrymen, hath allegorically explained divers Passages of the Old Testa∣ment, in applying them to the New, and found out several Moral Reflections upon the Proprieties of those Creatures that were not permitted to be eaten by the Jews. The Epistle of St. Clemens Ro∣manus, and the Stromata of St. Clemens Alexandrinus, are full of this kind of Allegories and Figura∣tive Expressions. The History of the Phoenix, related by St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthi∣ans, so much celebrated among the Primitive Christians, seems to be more Fabulous than that which is alledged by St. Barnabas in this Epistle concerning the Properties of certain Animals; and the Allegory of the Blood of Jesus Christ typified by the Scarlet Thread of the Harlot Rahab, in the Epi∣stle of St. Clemens Romanus, is as far fetch'd as the greatest part of those of St. Barnabas. But what necessity is there to produce farther Proofs of a Matter of Fact that is so evident, since it is suffici∣ently known to all Men, that the Writings of the Primitive Christians are generally full of such Fa∣bles and Allegories?

Lastly, the Author of this Epistle is accused for representing the Apostles as the most flagitious Per∣sons in the World before their Conversion; but his Words have been taken in too strict and literal a sense; for he intended not to say, that they were the wickedest Men in the World, but only that they were great Sinners g 1.31.

It is not known to whom the Epistle of St. Barnabas is directed, because we want the Title; it appears from the Body of this Letter, that it was written to some converted Jews that adhered too much to the Law of Moses: It is divided into two Parts, in the first of which he shews the unprofi∣tableness of the Old Law, and the necessity of the Incarnation and Death of Jesus Christ, producing divers passages of Scripture relating to the Ceremonies and Precepts of the Old Law, which he ex∣plains Allegorically when he applies them to our Saviour and the New Law: The second Part com∣prehends particular Moral Instructions, containing several Rules and Directions concerning what ought to be done, and what ought to be avoided.

This Epistle was first published h 1.32 in Greek, together with the ancient Version by Menardus, and this Edition was printed at Paris by Piget in the Year 1645.

Afterwards the famous Dr. Isaac Vossius caused it to be reprinted with the Epistles of St. Ignatius revised and corrected from three Manuscripts, Anno Dom. 1646.

Lastly, Cotelerius published it, adding a new Translation è Regione, together with the old Version, entire, and certain Critical Remarks at the end. It is prefixed at the beginning of his Collection of the Works of the ancient Fathers, printed at Paris by Petit, Anno 1672.

The Greek Text of the four or five first Chapters is wanting in all these Editions, but they are ex∣tant in Latin in the ancient Version, which, although barbarous and defective, hath nevertheless ser∣ved to correct the Greek Original in some places.

Of the Liturgies that are falsely attributed to the Apostles.

WE need only to reflect on what we find Recorded in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corin∣thians, concerning the Administration of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and up∣on * 1.33 the Accounts of St. Justin, and other Primitive Fathers of the Church, to be per∣swaded that the Apostles and their Successors celebrated the Eucharist with great Sim∣plicity. This hath been observed by all those that have written concerning Liturgies a 1.34, who have unanimously agreed, that the Celebration of the Mass was performed in those Primitive Ages with∣out much Ceremony, and that they used but few Prayers; but by little and little others were added, and several visible Ceremonies were annexed, to render the Service more venerable to the People. In fine, the Churches afterwards regulated, and committed to Writing, the manner of Celebrating it, and this is what they called Liturgies, which being compiled conformably to the various Customs of divers Places, are likewise found to be different. And forasmuch as Men are naturally inclined to make some Alterations in their Exterior Habit, many things from time to time have been successively added to them.

This single Remark is sufficient to shew, that the Liturgies, that bear the Name of the Apostles and Evangelists, were not actually composed by them: But to prove this clearly, and beyond con∣tradiction, we shall only examine them one after another.

The Liturgy, or Greek and Latin Mass, attributed to St. Peter, and published by Lindanus in the year 1589. from a Manuscript of Cardinal Sirlet's, that was not very ancient, and which was afterwards Printed at Paris by Morellus, Anno 1595. cannot be St. Peter's for the following Reasons, since men∣tion is made therein of St. Sixtus, Cornelius, and St. Cyprian: The Virgin Mary is called the Mother of God, a Term that was not generally in use, until after the Condemnation of the Nestorian Heresie; The Canon of the Latin Mass, which is reputed by St. Gregory, to have been composed by a Scho∣lastick, that is to say, a Learned Man of the Fifth Century, is entirely inserted therein: Moreover it contains divers Litanies taken from the Sacramentarium of St. Gregory, and the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom: There are also Prayers for the Patriach, a term altogether unknown before the end of the Fourth Age of the Church, and for the most religious Emperors. In short, if St. Peter had been the Author of this Liturgy, it would have been used by the Church of Rome, neither would it have lain hid during so many Ages. These Reasons made the Learned Cardinal Bona say, that this Liturgy was forged, and that it was in all probability compiled by a Grecian Priest Latinized, because it is collected partly from the Greek Liturgy, and partly from the Latin, and the name of St. Peter was prefixed to it, either that it might obtain more Authority, or because a great part of the Liturgy of the Church of Rome was comprehended therein.

The Mass of the Ethiopians that bears the name of St. Matthew, appears more evidently to be forged. There are Collects for Popes, Kings, Patriarchs, and Arch-Bishops: The Twelve Apostles are there∣in invocated: The Four Evangelists are cited, as also the Synods of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephe∣sus: The Nicene Creed is inserted with the Particle Filioque: Moreover mention is likewise made of St. Athanasius, St. Gregory, and St. Basil, together with the Epact, the Golden Number, and the Tri∣sagion; which plainly shews, that this Liturgy is of a very late date.

One ought to give the same Judgment of the Liturgy of St. Mark, published by Cardinal Sirlet, and Printed at Paris by Morellus; for we find therein the word Consubstantial, and the Trisagion: There are also several Prayers for the King, and even for St. Mark himself, and mention is made of Chalices, Deacons, Subdeacons, Chanters, Monks, Religious Persons, &c. which Circumstances are ap∣parent Demonstrations of its novelty.

There remains only the Liturgy attributed to St. James, which divers Learned Men have taken much pains to vindicate, but to no purpose; for although it is more ancient than those that we have already examined, since it is cited in the Synod that was holden in the Emperor's Palace in Trullo,

after the Fifth General Council, yet we ought not to say, that St. James was the Author thereof, or that it was composed in his time. For, 1. The Virgin Mary is call'd in this Liturgy the Mother of God; and the Son and the Holy Ghost are said to be Consubstantial with the Father, terms that were altogether unknown in St. James's time: But supposing that they were not, is it credible, that this Authority should not be alledged in the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, and Constantinople? 2. We find therein the Trisagion and the Doxology, that is to say, the Sanctus and the Gloria Patri, which were not generally recited in the Church until the Fifth Century; for though it might be proved that they were in use before, yet it must be confessed, that it was not the general custom of the Church. 3. There are Collects for those that were shut up in Monasteries: Can any man say, that there were Monasteries in the time of St. James? 4. There is mention made of Confessors, a term that was not inserted in the Divine Offices, till a long time after St. James, even according to the Confession of Bellarmin. 5. In this Liturgy there is mention made of Churches, Incense, Altars, &c. can it be imagined that these things were used in St. James's time? 6. We find therein very many Citations of the Epistles of St. Paul, the greatest part whereof were written after St. James's death; neither ought we to ob∣ject with the Cardinals Bona and Bellarmin, that these things were afterwards inserted, because it is not probable, that they should be added in so many places; besides, the Connexion and the Ceremo∣nies of this whole Liturgy do not argee with the time of the Apostles.

I shall not here speak of other Liturgies cited by some Authors, such are those of the Twelve Apostles mentioned by Abraham Ecchellensis, and that of St. Barnabas quoted by a certain Monk, because they are unknown to me; neither shall I examine that which is comprised in the Constitu∣tions of St. Clement, nor that which is extant in the Writings that are attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, in regard that these Books being forged, as I shall hereafter shew in another place, it is not to be doubted but that the Liturgies which they contain, are in like manner fictitious.

Of the Apostles Creed.

HAving already Discoursed of the Works of every one of the Apostles in particular, it re∣mains, that we should now give some account of those that are reputed to be composed by * 1.35 them in general; The most Authentick among these is the Apostles Creed, which is gene∣rally believed to have been made by all the Apostles. But Authors are not agreed about the time wherein it was written by them, nor concerning the manner how it was compil'd, nor the de∣sign they had in making it. Some are of Opinion with Ruffinus a 1.36, that they compil'd it in the very same year that Jesus Christ died, a little after the descent of the Holy Ghost; whereas Baronius and others conjecture, that they did not finish it till the Second year of the Reign of the Emperor Claudius, a little before they were separated. As to the manner of their drawing it up, some have imagined, that every one of the Apostles pronounced b 1.37 his Article, and that for this reason it is called a Symbol, as consistng of divers Sentences: Others believe••, that it was compiled by them after they had conferred all together; and there are some also who assert, that all the Disci∣ples had a share therein. Lastly, as to their design in composing it, some determine that it was, that they might be all found unanimously to agree in one and the same Doctrine c 1.38, and others, that it was for the benefit of the People, that they might be able to propound to them an Abridg∣ment of the Christian Faith, which should be easie to be understood, and to be retained in their Memory. The Etymology of the word Symbol is yet more uncertain d 1.39; for some affirm, that the

Creed is so called, because it is as it were the distinguishing Mark and Character of Christians e 1.40; others, because it was composed of the Sentences of several Persons; and lastly others, on the account of its being made in a general Conference.

However, although it is an Opinion established on very good grounds, that this Creed was made by the Apostles, and it cannot be denied, that they all preached and taught the Articles therein con∣tained after one and the same manner, as the main Points of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, in which it was necessary that all Christians should be instructed; yet it may be justly doubted without in∣curring the imputation of rashness, whether they were assembled together to compose this Creed, and whether they wrote it word for word, as it is now received in the Church of Rome; nay there are very weighty Reasons, whereby it appears, that this Opinion, though commonly received, is never∣theless very improbable.

For first, neither St. Luke in the Acts, nor any Ecclesiastical Author before the Fifth Century hath made any mention of this Assembly of the Apostles, and none ever affirmed, that they composed the Creed of the Church of Rome, either by conferring together, or by pronouncing every one a particu∣lar Article.

Secondly, the Fathers of the Three first Ages disputing against the Hereticks, endeavour to demon∣strate by many Arguments, that the Doctrine contained in the Creed, is that of the Apostles, but they do not affirm, that it was compiled by them; and yet there could not have been a stronger, or more convincing proof brought against those Hereticks, than to have said thus to them; You impugn the Doctrine of the Creed, and yet it is certain, that the Apostles were the Authors thereof, therefore you impugn the Doctrine of the Apostles. However they did not argue after this manner; On the contrary they prove by Tradition, and the Consent of the Apostolical Churches, that the Doctrine comprised in the Creed, is that of the Apostles.

Thirdly, if the Apostles had made a Creed, it would have been every where the same through∣out all Churches, and in all Ages; all Christians would have learnt it by heart; all Churches would have repeated it after the very same manner; in fine, all Authors would have expressed it in the same terms. Now the contrary is evident; for it is certain, that not only in the second and third Cen∣turies, but also in the fourth, there were many Creeds, and all, though the same as to the Doctrine, yet differed in the Expression. In the second and third Ages of the Church, we find as many Creeds as Authors f 1.41, and the same Author sets the Creed down after a different manner in several places of his Works, which plainly shews, that there was not then any Creed that was reputed to be the Apostles, nor even any regulated and established Form of Faith. Ruffinus in the fourth Century compares three ancient Creeds of the Churches of Aquileia, Rome, and the East, and we may ob∣serve in these three Creeds, none of which perfectly agrees with the common one, very considerable differences in the terms, as appears from the Table that is subjoyned at the end of this Article. St. Cy∣ril of Jerusalem in his Catechetick Lectures produceth a particular Creed, that was used by the Church of Jerusalem when this Father wrote. The Authors that have written Commentaries on the Creed, as St. Augustine in his 119th Sermon, St. Maximus, Petrus Chrysologus, Fortunatus, and others, omit divers Expressions that are inserted in our Apostolical Creed, among others this at the end, The Life Everlasting; and St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Pammachius, that the Creed concludes with these words, The Resurrection of the Body.

It is evident from these Reflections, that although the Creed be the Apostles as to the Doctrine which it contains, nevertheless it is not theirs, as to all the terms, and that they did not draw up any one form of Faith comprehended in a set number of words, which they were all obliged to use: But that having learn'd the same Faith from Jesus Christ, they likewise taught it to all those that were converted to the Christian Religion, and instructed them all in the same Mysteries. That they that were thus trained up in this Faith, had it so deeply imprinted on their mind, (as St. Justin and St. Irenaeus observe) that they were always ready to give an account thereof, and as often as they should be required to do it, without making use of any one particular form; and from thence proceeds the difference of the Creeds that are set down by the Fathers. And lastly, that for the assistance of the Memory, certain forms of these Articles of Faith, were afterwards compiled, which were found to be different according to the diversity of the Churches wherein they were used. For I doubt not in the least, that besides the above-cited Creeds, there were many others of which we have no know∣ledge, from whence it must be inferred, that Jesus Christ is the Author of the Doctrine contained in the Creed, and that the Apostles preached and published it throughout the whole World; but that it cannot be determined by whom these Forms were collected, wherein this Doctrine is comprised.

It may be objected, that St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lucifer Calaritanus, and St. Jerome affirm, that the Creed is the Rule of Faith, which the Church hath received from the Apostles; That St. Ambrose * 1.42 says, that the Church of Rome hath preserved the Apostolical Creed in its purity without Alteration; That St. Augustine, Ruffinus, Leo, Maximus Taurinensis, Fortunatus, Petrus Chrysologus, and a great many others g 1.43 have taken it for granted as a thing beyond Controversie, that the Creed was com∣posed in an Assembly of the Apostles, that this Opinion is Authorised by the Church, and that it seems to be a rash Presumption to doubt of it; And lastly, that all Catholicks are agreed in this Judg∣ment, and that none but Hereticks, or at least Persons that are suspected of Heresie, durst presume to call it in question.

To these Objections I answer first, that the Testimonies of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lucifer, ra∣ther overthrow the vulgar Opinion, than establish it; for these Fathers do not assert, that we have received the form of Faith from the Apostles, but only the Faith and Doctrine that was communica∣ted to them by Jesus Christ; therefore if there were any force in the Objection, it must be conluded, that our Saviour is the Author of the Creed. Moreover, it is further to be observed, that by the Phrase Rule of Faith used by Tertullian, a set Form of Faith is not to be understood, but the Faith it self, which he declares to have been founded by Jesus Christ; and Lucifer Calaritanus doth not discourse of the Creed, but only of the Faith of the Church as it relates to our Saviour's Divinity. Lastly, when St. Jerome says, that the Faith of the Creed, which is an Apostolical Tradition, was not written on Paper, or with Ink, but was engraved on the Fleshly Tables of the Heart; he gives us to understand, that he meant nothing else, but that the Faith and Doctrine comprehended in the Creed proceeds from the Apostles, who have taught it to all the Faithful. After the same manner, when St. Ambrose assures us, that the Creed was preserved in its purity by the Church of Rome, he doth not speak of the form of the Creed, but of the Doctrine therein contained. As for the other Authorities that are alledged, they are of little moment. Ruffinus is the first, and the only Person among the Authors of the Fifth Century, that asserts, that the Creed was composed by the Apostles, and yet he proposes this Opinion, as a matter that depended only on a popular Tradition; St. Augustin never approved it, for he doth not so much as mention one word thereof in his 119th Homily, and the 115th which might be cited to this purpose, cannot be proved certainly to be his: In fine, the the other Authors who lived after Ruffinus, have taken this History from him, and are too modern to give a certain Testimony of a matter of Fact so ancient as this is; We may also add, that it is re∣lated by none but the Latins; that the Greeks never spoke of it, and that even they that produce it, do in no wise agree among themselves, concerning its Circumstances, as hath been already shewn. To conclude, there is no rashness in departing here, from the vulgar Opinion, since it is merely a Critical Question, that hath no regard to Faith, because it is granted on all sides, that Jesus Christ is the Author of the Doctrine comprised in the Creed, and that the Apostles taught it to all the Christians. Besides, they that maintain the common Opinion, are at last obliged to subscribe to our determination when they are urged; and to acknowledge, when it is objected to them, that the an∣cient Roman Creed was different from our Vulgar; that our Creed is not the Apostles as to the words, but as to the Sense, which comes to our Opinion at last. And besides it is not unusual in Critical Matters to forsake an Opinion that hath been generally received, and to embrace that of some Learned and Judicious Men, even of those that are suspected not to be Orthodox. Thus all the World is at present agreed in this, that the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons were not writ∣ten by the Apostles, as we shall shew in the following Article, and yet scarce any Man presumed so much as to doubt thereof, before Erasmus.

A TABLE, wherein the Four ancient CREEDS are compared.

The VULGAR▪	〈◊〉〈◊〉 of AQUIL•…•…	The ORIENTAL▪	The ROMAN.
I. I Believe in one GOD the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven, and Earth.	I. I Believe in one GOD the Father Almighty. In the ancient Editions of Morellus and C••••chius, we read, In Deo Patre Omnipotente; The ••••la∣tive Case being put in∣stead of the Accus••tive Deum; but this was a fault of the Transcriber.	I. I Believe in one GOD the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible.	I. I Believe in GOD the Father Almighty.
II. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.	II. And in Christ Jesus his only Son our Lord.	II. And in our only Lord Jesus Christ his Son.	II. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.
III. Who was Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary.	III. Who was born of the Holy Ghost of the Vir∣gin Mary.	III. The same as in that of Aquileia.	III. The same as in that of Aquileia.
IV. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was Crucified, dead and buried, he de∣scended into Hell.	IV. Was Crucified under Pon∣tius Pilate, and was bu∣ried, he descended into Hell.	IV. Was Crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried.	IV. The same as in the Oriental.
V. The third Day he rose again from the Dead.	V. The same.	V. The same.	V. The same.
VI. He ascended into Hea∣ven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty.	VI. He ascended into Hea∣ven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father.	VI. The same as in that of Aquileia, saving that some add, Almighty, as in the Vulgar.	VI. The same as in that of Aquileia.
VII. From thence he shall come to judge the Quick and the Dead.	VII. The same.	VII. The same.	VII. The same.
VIII. I believe in the Holy Ghost.	VIII. And in the Holy Ghost.	VIII. The same as in that of Aquileia.	VIII. The same as in that of Aquileia.
IX. The Holy Catholick Church, the Commu∣nion of Saints.	IX. I Believe the Holy Church. Pamelius adds Catho∣lick, but falsly; for there is no more expressed by Ruffi∣nus than these Words, The Communion of Saints.	IX. The same as in that of Aquileia.	IX. The same as in that of Aquileia.
X. The Forgiveness of Sins.	X. The same.	X. The same.	X. The same.
XI. The Resurrection of the Body.	XI. The Resurrection of this Body.	XI. The same as in the Vulgar.	XI. The same as in the Vulgar.
XII. And the Life everlasting. Amen.	XII. Wanting.	XII. Wanting.	XII. Wanting.

Of the Canons and Constitutions attributed to the Apostles.

THE Opinions of Authors are extremely divided, as to the Canons that are commonly called Apostolical. Turrianus and some others have determined, that they were all com∣posed by the Apostles: Baronius and Bellarmine except the 35 last, which are rejected by * 1.44 them as Apocryphal, but they have made no difficulty to admit the first 50. Gabriel Al∣baspinaeas Bishop of Orleans, and others, have believed, that although these Canons are not written by the Apostles, yet that they were very ancient, as being properly a Collection of the Canons of divers Councils that were holden before that of Nice; this Opinion is likewise maintained by the Learned Dr. Beverege, in a Book lately published by him, Entituled, Vindiciae Canonum, &c. calling by this Name the Collection of 85 Canons attributed to the Apostles. Lastly, M. Daille affirms, that these Canons are not only falsly ascribed to the Apostles, but are also of a much later date, and were not collected until about the end of the Fifth Century. We shall now proceed to examine these O∣pinions, and to establish that of Albaspinaeus, which seems to be most probable.

It is not very difficult to prove, that these Canons were not compiled by the Apostles themselves; we need only peruse them, to be convinced, that they contain divers things that never were, nor indeed could be decreed by the Apostles a 1.45; some whereof relate to certain Questions that were not debated until many years after their death b 1.46. But it ought to be observed, that they are usu∣ally styled by the ancient Writers, Ancient Canons, Canons of the Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Canons; Titles that are likewise prefixed to them in several Manuscripts, as Cotelerius has observed: And if they are sometimes called or entituled Apostolical, it cannot be upon the account of their belonging to the Apostles; but it is sufficient that some of them have been made by Bishops that presided over the Church a little after the Apostles, because they that lived at that time were generally cal∣led Apostolical Men. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions is the first that attributed these Canons to the Apostles, and he hath said some things to induce us to believe, that they were actual∣ly composed by the Apostles c 1.47. Therefore these Canons are not the Work of an Impostor, who hath forged them under the Name of the Apostles, but only a Collection, that hath been falsly im∣puted to them, that it might be esteemed more Authentick: And I am apt to believe, that no Per∣son

was more capable of performing this Artifice, than the above-cited Author of the Apostolical Constitutions d 1.48, who hath in like manner ascribed many other Writings to the Apostles, and hath inserted these Canons entire in his third Book.

As for the Antiquity of them, it is apparent that they are very ancient, and that a great part of them (if not all) were decreed by Councils that were holden before that of Nice: For first, they do not contain any thing (according to my judgment) but what is conformable to the Discipline that was observed in some Churches at the end of the second Century, throughout the third, and in the beginning of the fourth. Secondly, they comprehend certain Ordinances that are known to have been made in those times: As for Example; There is a Canon that prohibits the Celebration of the Feast of Easter with the Jews, now we are assured, that this was Decreed in divers Synods assembled in the time of Pope Victor. Moreover there are three, wherein the Baptism of Hereticks is rejected, as void and of no effect, which is declared by Firmilian and Dionysius Alexandrinus to have been de∣termined in the Councils of Sy•…•…a and Iconium, that were holden some time before them. But who can believe, that these Canons were made or counterfeited at a time when Persons baptized by Hereticks were generally admitted without re-baptizing them? And it cannot be imagined, that they were forged by St. Cyprian, or Firmilian, on purpose to authorize their Discipline; it is much more reasonable to believe, that they really are the very Canons of the Synods of Iconium and Synnada, which have been falsly attributed to the Apostles, not by these Saints, but by later Authors. Third∣ly, It is clearly proved, that the greatest part of these Canons are more ancient than the Council of Nice, because they are often cited in this Council, and those that were conven'd not long after, as well as by the Authors who wrote in the fourth Century e 1.49, under the name of Ancient Laws, Ca∣nons of the Fathers, Ecclesiastical Canons, and even Apostolical, which is different from what they call Customs, Manners, or Discipline, concerning which there are no written Rules or Injunctions. There∣fore it is certain, that these Canons are ancient, that they have been erroneously ascribed to the Apo∣stles, and that they are a Collection of Ordinances of divers ancient Synods that were holden before the Council of Nice, but it is not known when this Collection was made, nor who collected it, nor even whether it consists of those 85 Canons that are now extant, or of a lesser number. However, it is probable, that it was compiled at several times, and that some Canons have been successively ad∣ded, because no order is observed therein, as also because that the Canons relating to one and the same Subject are often found separated, besides some Contradictions.

The Objections propounded by Mr. Daillé against the Apostolical Canons, manifestly prove against Turrianus that they were not composed by the Apostles, but they do not in the least impugn our opinion. As for Example; It is objected by him, That there are in these Canons certain terms that were not usual in the time of the Apostles, as Clerk, Lecturer, Laick, Metropolitan, &c. But he cannot deny that these terms were used in the third Age of the Church. That which is ordained concerning Lent, and against fasting on Sundays or the Sabbath, may belong to the third Century since the same things are found in the Works of Tertullian. The Canons against those that make

themselves Eunuchs, might be composed by Demetrius against the Error of Origen. The Canons concerning Easter, are apparently those of the Councils that were convened under Victor; and others relating to the Baptism of Hereticks, are probably those of the Councils of Synnada and Iconium. Upon the perusal of all the Objections alledged by M. Daillé, it will appear, that although they are ex∣tremely weighty against the Opinion of Turrianus, yet they are of no force against ours f 1.50.

It ought then to be esteemed as certain, that not only the first 50 Canons, but likewise the fol∣lowing 35. are very ancient, though they do not belong to the Apostles. Therefore they have been always much esteemed by the Greeks, as being of great Authority. Joannes Antiochenus, who lived in the time of the Emperor Justinian, hath inserted them in his Collection of Canons; and they are commended by Justinian himself in his sixth Novel. They are in like manner approved in the Synod that was holden in the Imperial Palace after the fifth General Council; cited in the seventh Oecumenial Council, and allowed by St. Joannes Damascenus, and Photius, but with this difference, that the first, who was no great Critick, attributed them to the Apostles, and the other that was more quick-sighted in these matters, doubted whether they belonged to them. However they have not always met with the same Reception among the Latins. Cardinal Humbert hath rejected them, and Gelasius hath placed them amongst the Apocryphal Books, as well because they were falsely ascribed to the Apostles, as because he found among them some Canons, that authorised the opinion of St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Hereticks. Hinchmar favourably ex∣plains Gelasius's Notion, declaring, that he did not insert them among those Books that were Apo∣cryphal and full of Errors, but only in the number of those, with respect to which this Rule of St. Paul ought to be observed, Try all things, and hold fast that which is good. Dionysius Exiguus hath translated the first 50, and hath prefixed them to his Collection, taking notice however, that some Persons would not acknowledge them; and perhaps this is the reason that Martinus Braccarensis would not admit them into his Collection of Canons; but Isidore hath made no difficulty to afford them a place in his, and ever since they have been always accounted as a part of the Canon Law. It is further to be observed, that as soon as they appeared in France, they were generally well re∣ceived there, and were first urged in the cause of Praetextatus under the Reign of King Chilperic, wherein their Authority was allowed, as we are informed by Gregorius Turonensis in the fifth Book of his History, Chap. 19. where he takes notice, that there was an Appendix added to the Collection of Canons, which contained certain Canons, as being writ by the Apostles, quasi Apostolicos, and cites one of them, which is the 25th Apostolical, but according to a different Version from that of Dionysius Exi∣guus. Lastly, Hinchmar Bishop of Rheims observes, that they were annexed to the beginning of a Collection of Canons compiled for the use of the Church of France, separately from the others, and as for their Authority and Antiquity, he is altogether of our opinion, which he explains in these words, in the 24th Canon. The Canons (says he) that are called Apostolical, collected by some Christians, were written in a time when the Bishops could not freely assemble together, nor hold Councils; they contain ma∣ny things that may be allowed, but they likewise establish others that ought not to be observed.

I cannot say the same thing of the Apostolical Constitutions, as I have done of the Canons, viz. that they are not supposititious, but that in process of time a false Title happened to be attributed to them; for the Author of the Constitutions is an Impostor, that endeavours every where to pass for Clement a Disciple of the Apostles, and who imputes to them all in general, and to every one in par∣ticular, divers Ordinances that are in no wise consonant to the Apostolical ones; such are those con∣cerning Churches built in the form of Temples, Catechumens, Energumens, Fasts, Liturgies, Unction,

〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉; The Ordination of Deacons and Deaconesses; Vir∣gin••, Confessors, 〈◊〉〈◊〉; The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Oyl and Water; The First-Fruits of Tyths, Festi∣val Days, the Celebration of Easter, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 many other things that were not practised in the time of the Apostles, not to mention a great number of Absurdities and Mistakes of time, together with some Errors that are contained 〈◊〉〈◊〉 g 1.51, which evidently demonstrates beyond contradiction, that these Constitutions were not composed by Apostles, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that they do not belong to St. Clement, as we shall shew more at large in discoursing concerning the Works o•• this Father, where we shall likewise endeavour to discover at what time they were forg'd.

I shall add nothing concerning the Nine Canone that are also attributed to the Apostles, and are reported to have been made by them in a certain Council of Antioch unknown to all Antiquity; be∣cause there is no question but that they are fictitious; neither are they at present maintained by any h 1.52.

Cf several Books attributed to Prochorus, Linus, and Abdias, and of the Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew.

IN the time of the Apostles there lived a certain Person named Prochorus, one of the Seven first Deacons, and there is now extant a Book under his name, containing the Life of St. John, which * 1.53 is Printed among the Orthodoxographa, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. But Baronius, Bellarmin, Lorinus, The Master of the Palace, and in a word, all those that have written concerning Ec∣clesiastical Authors both Roman Catholicks and Protestants unanimously agree, that it is a suppositi∣tious Book, and unworthy of him whose Name it bears; and indeed, it is a Narrative full of ab∣surd Fables and Tales. It is related there, that St. John cast himself at the Feet of the Apostles, de∣siring to be exempted from going into Asia; That after he was taken out of the Caldron of boiling Oyl, a Church was built in Honour of him; That he composed his Gospel in the Isle of Patmos, &c. The Stile of this Book argues its Author to be a Latin or a Greek, and not an Hebrew. Lastly, we find therein the words Trinity and Hypostasis.

The two Books attributed to Linus concerning the Passion of St. Peter, and St. Paul are likewise generally rejected, as fictitious and full of Fables. They say, that Agrippa was Governor of Rome in the time of St. Peter, who suffered Martyrdom without the knowledge of Nero; That this Empe∣ror was offended that he was put to Death; That part of the Roman Magistrates were Christians; and that the Wife of Albanus departed from her Husband against his Will, following the advice of St. Peter. In fine, both these Books are full of Errors, Falsities, Fictions, and notorious Untruths; in the last of which mention is made of the Epistles of St. Paul to Seneca, and of Seneca to St. Paul.

We must likewise give the same Judgment upon the Book imputed to Abdias, that contains di∣vers extremely fabulous Relations concerning the Lives of the Apostles, and was Printed by it self in the years 1557, 1560, and 1571; at Basil, Anno 1532, and at Paris in 1583; it is also inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum. At first they tried to make it pass for a Book composed in Hebrew, by a Disci∣ple of Jesus Christ, named Abdias of the City of Babylon, Translated into Greek by Eutropius, and

into Latin by Julius Africanus; but now the whole World is convinced of this Error, and it is ge∣nerally agreed, that it was forged by an Impostor, that falsly pretends to be a Disciple of Jesus Christ, who nevertheless cites Hegesippus, and Julius Africanus, whom he could not have seen if he had li∣ved in our Saviours time; and lastly, he relates many fabulous Narrations concerning the Life of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, which it would be too tedious here to rehearse.

Men are divided in their Censures upon the Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew written by the Priests of Achaia, which are inserted in the History of the Saints published by Surius, Baronius, Bel∣larmine, and some other Criticks of the Church of Rome admit them as authentick, but they are rejected by many. The ancient Ecclesiastical Writers know no other Records of St. Andrew than those that were corrupted by the Manichees, mentioned by St. Augustine, Philastrius, and Pope Inno∣cent a 1.54, and which are reckoned by Gelasius in the number of Apochryphal Books. But it is cer∣tain that those were different from these whereof we now discourse; It is also evident, that these last Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew, have been cited by none but Authors that lived since the Seventh or Eighth Century, as by Remigius Altissiodorensis. Petrus Damianus, Lanfrank, St. Bernard, and Ivo Carnutensis, which is the cause that we can have no assurance that they are very ancient. Thirdly, the Mystery of the Trinity is not only explained in these Acts after such a manner as gives us occa∣sion to suspect, that he that wrote them lived after the Council of Nice; but he likewise propagates the Error of the modern Greeks, in affirming, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and remains in the Son. It is indeed objected, that there are Manuscripts wherein these words are not ex∣pressed, but who knows, whether they have not been omitted in some, rather than added in others? Therefore this History ought at least to be esteemed, as a dubious Writing, that cannot be applied (as St. Jerome declares) to prove any Doctrine of Faith.

The account of the Life and Death of St. Matthias was forged by an Author who pretends to have received it from a Jew that Translated it out of the Hebrew Tongue. We ought also to place in the rank of Apocryphal and fabulous Books, the Life of St. Mark, and the History of St. Clement, toge∣ther with that of Apollinarius, setdown in the Collection of ancient Histories compiled by Laurentius de la Barre. And we need only read them over to be convinced of their falsity.

Of the Books of the Sibyls, Mercurius Trismegistus, and Hystas∣pes: Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate, concerning Jesus Christ: Of the Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul, and of those of St. Paul to Seneca: And of a Passage in the History of Josephus.

WE joyn all these prophane Records together, that have been heretofore alledged in fa∣vour of the Christian Religion, that so we may examine them; and although we should * 1.55 reject them, yet we do not believe that we do any wrong to Religion, which is sufficiently furnished with solid and convincing Proofs, without standing in need of those that are false or dubious. We begin with the Verses that are attributed to the Sibyls, which are frequently cited by the ancient Writers to convince the Pagans of the Truth of the Religion of Jesus Christ; but before we proceed to Examine them, it would be expedient to give some account of these Sibyls and their Books.

It is difficult to assign a true Etymology of the Word Sibyl; Lactantius, and after him St. Jerom, affirm, that the Sibyls were so called, because they were the Interpreters of the Decrees of the Gods; and that their Name consisted of two Greek Words a 1.56, signifying the Counsel of the Gods, which being written in the Aeolick Dialect compose that of Sibyl. It is derived by some from an Hebrew Word, and by others from an obsolete Latin Adjective b 1.57, that signifies, Subtil or Acute; but this later Conjecture is false, since the Word Sibyl was used by the Greeks before the Latins. The most probable opinion is, that the Name Sibyl, which was proper to the famous Delphick Prophetess, afterwards became common to others, as that of Caesar, peculiar only to Julius, was after him appro∣priated to all the succeeding Emperors.

Nothing is s•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉s of the S•…•…s c 1.58, many of the ancient Wri∣ters •…•…s of her of Delph••s. S•••••••••• and some Others 〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 produceth three, her of Delph••s, her of Erythr••, and her of C••••••. •…•…, the L••••y••k the Delph••ck o•• Erithr••••••, the Cuman and the Ba∣bylonian. Aelian, V••••••s, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and most other Writers, reckon ten, and some add others to the number, but they do not agree about their Names, nor the Place of their Habitation, and they often 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them one with another.

However, it is certain, that the Name of Sibyls was given to certain Women, who being transpor∣ted with Enthus••••sm d 1.59, and an extravagant Fury, caused either through a violent Inflammation of Choler, or by the possession of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, pronounced divers obscure and e••••gmatical Sentences that passed among the Heathens for Oracles and Predictions. It is reported, that the Sibyl of Cuma wrote them on the Leaves of Trees e 1.60, and that a Collection of them was offered by a certain Woman to Tarquinius f 1.61 King of the Romans, who bought part thereof, which he caused care∣fully to be laid up in an U••n or Stone-Pot, and to be placed in the Capitol, having created Officers on purpose, whom he called D•…•…iri, whose Office it was to keep those Oracles with care, and to consult them upon urgent Occasions. The number of those that executed this Commission was by little and little encreased, for there were afterwards ten, and at last fifteen, constituted for this purpose; and very severe Punishments were in••••icted on these persons, if they suffered the Books of the Sibyls to be seen. It is related by Di••nysius Halicarnass••us, and Valerius Maximus, that one of these Duumviri was put▪ to Death as a Pa••ricide, that is to say, he was sow'd up alive in a Sack, and thrown into the Sea, for permitting some of the Sibylline Verses to be transcribed. These Books were thus preserved until the year 671, after the Foundation of Rome, which was the 83d before the Nativity of Jesus Christ. But the Capitol being burnt in that year, these Books were likewise consumed with the rest of the Ornaments of this Palace, as is observed by Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, Pliny, and other Authors. When the Capitol was rebuilt, the Consuls made a Proposition to the

Senate, to send Ambassadors into Greece to Erythrae, as also into Asia, to collect the Oracles of the Sibyls, and to transmit them to Rome: Whereupon Octacilius Crassus, and L. Valerius Flaccus were deputed to go unto Attalus King of Pergamus, who brought out of Asia a thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which they had gathered together throughout all the Parts of that Region from the Copies of divers private Persons. But fora••much as there were many things therein that seemed to be false or super••••uous, fifteen Men were appointed to Revise and Correct them, and after this Cor∣rection they were placed in the Capitol in the room of the others. In the time of Augustús, these Books were again reviewed; above two thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls were burnt by the Command of this Emperor, and those that were allowed to be Genuine, were enclosed in two Gol∣den Boxes in the Temple of Apollo. Some are of opinion, that these Writings were burnt in the Con••••ag••ation of Rome under Nero, but they have not produc'd any convincing Proofs of this mat∣ter. However, it is certain, that as long as there were Pagan Emperors at Rome g 1.62, the Oracles ascri∣bed to the Sibyls were carefully preserv'd there, to which they had Recourse on all extraordinary and emergent Occasions, and Julian the Apostate designing to re-establish all the ancient Heathen Super∣stitions, caused the Sibylline Books to be diligently sought for, and consulted.

There are now extant many Greek Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which are divided into eight Books; but at present it is almost generally agreed throughout the whole World, that they are a fictitious Work, as the Time in which they were written h 1.63, the Style i 1.64, and the Things therein con∣tained k 1.65, do most clearly demonstrate. And if it be certain, that the eight Books, which we now have in our possession under the Name of the Sibyls, are counterfeit, it is no less true, that those that were in the hands of the Fathers, and which they cited, were equally spurious, and also that they were not much different from those that we have at this day; I affirm therefore, First, That the Books of the Sibyls, alledged by the Fathers, were not really those Sibylline Oracles that the Romans preserved, with so much Care; For besides that these last were so strictly kept, that a Copy of them could not be procured by any means whatsoever, much less common, as those were that are quoted by the Fa∣thers, which were every where visible; it is plain, that they comprehended such matters as were altoge∣ther different from those that are usually found in the Writings of the Fathers. For in the former profane Things were only comprised, concerning the Ceremonies of the Heathens, whereas the later

were full of Predictions and Instructions relating to Christianity. The Books of the Sibyls were ne∣ver consulted among the Romans, without extracting from them some Superstitions perfectly Pa∣gan l 1.66 They were informed therein, that they ought either to offer some sort of Sacrifice to the Gods, or to fasten a Nail in the Capitol, or to celebrate some particular Games to the Honour of Jupiter. At another time it was found to be necessary to cause the Statue of Aesculapius to be brought to Rome to erect a Temple to Venus, to offer Sacrifices to the Infernal Deities, and to appease the Heathen Gods with peculiar and extraordinary Solemnities. Lastly, Nothing was ever gathered from these Books, but Ceremonies that were absolutely prophane. On the contrary, the Fathers alledge no∣thing out of the Writings of the Sibyls, but what relates to the Christian Religion, and to the true Worship of God. Is there any probability, that these Prophetesses should have uttered Things so different, and that they should have taught in one and the same Book, the way of Worshipping the True God, and the greatest superstitions of the Gentiles? Who can imagine that these Books, that were kept by the Romans to Authorize all their Superstitious Rites, and which they esteemed as the most sublime and refined part of their Religion, should contain far clearer Prophesies concerning Jesus Christ, than all that was ever declared by the Jewish Prophets? Moreover, not only the Books of the Sibyls that are now extant speak of our Saviour in such plain Expressions, as look more like a Hi∣story than a Prophecy; But the same thing may be said of the Books cited by the Fathers, that com∣prehend the same Predictions, and even more distinct. For can there be a plainer Prediction con∣cerning Jesus Christ, than the Verses produced by Eusebius in the Prayer attributed to Constantine?

There is but one God, who is also the Saviour; Who hath suffer'd for us; Who is mark'd out in these Verses.

The Acrostick quoted in the same place is not more obscure. Can any thing be spoken more ex∣presly concerning the Creation of the World, the last Judgment, and the Life Everlasting, than what is produced by Theophilus Antiochenus, as proceeding from a Sibyl? All the other Sibylline Verses reci∣ted by the Fathers, are written almost after the very same manner on every particular Subject, and this obliged the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, attributed to St. Justin, to affirm, that the Sibyl had foretold the Advent of Jesus Christ in clear and evident Terms, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now what an absurdity is it to believe, that the Heathens, from whom God had concealed the Coming of his Son, and whom he suffered to walk in Darkness, should have more notable Prophecies among them, than all those of the Jews, to whose Custody he had committed the Sacred Writings, and to whom he had given the knowledge of the Messiah?

Moreover, this Argument might be urged farther, and it might be demanded from whence the Si∣byls could receive the knowledge of the Messiah. It is alledged by some, that they were Inspired by God; and by others, that they took from the Holy Scripture, all that they uttered concerning Re∣ligion; but there is no probability neither in the one nor the other Assertion; For what likelihood is there that God should inspire Sorceresses and Priestesses of false Gods, that deluded Mankind, to cause them to adore the Daemons with which they were possessed? Or who can imagine, that God should make use of such Instruments to reveal his Mysteries so clearly to the World? And on the other side, how could they draw those Truths out of the Old Testament, that are but very obscurely expressed there∣in, and which the Jews themselves could scarcely understand?

It remains only for a more full demonstration of the falsity of the Sibylline Oracles that were used by the Fathers to shew, that they differed very little from those that still bear the same Title. To evince this, it will be sufficient to observe, that excepting three or four Passages, all the others quoted by the ancient Authors, being very numerous, are expressed in equivalent Terms in the Sibylline Books that are read even at this day. Now the strongest Argument that can be alledged to prove that a Work is ancient, is, that those Passages that have been cited by the ancient Writers are found therein. Do we not frequently demonstrate the Antiquity of an infinite number of Books, only because a particular Passage recited by some ancient Author, is there to be found? Why then may it not be concluded after the same manner, that the Sibylline Books, tho' forged, are the same with those that were formerly extant? And this Proof is of so much the more force, because this may be urged not only against one single Passage, but very many, that are alledged by different Authors, and also be∣cause the Sibylline Oracles still remain in the same Language in which they were cited. Moreover it is not to be admired, that there are some Passages which are not found therein, and that there are others which are not Verbally expressed, because some places in these Books are wanting; and it hath been often observed, that the ancient Writers are not usually very exact in their Quotations, but ad∣here to the Sense rather than the Literal Expression. It might likewise be added, that all that is related by the ancient Fathers concerning the Books of the Sibyls that were heretofore in use, is conformable to these: The Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles affirms, that the Style of the Sibylline Wri∣tings was not very polite; these are of the like nature; they were then reported to contain divers Anachronisms, and this Defect is also at present observable among them, They Treated concerning Jesus Christ, the last Judgment, Hell, &c. all these Things are in like manner comprised in those that

we now have in our possession. Lastly, these last are very ancient, and belong to the time of the most ancient Fathers; for some Opinons may be found there, that could not be maintained but in the Primitive Ages of the Church: Such are the Errors of the Millenaries; That Nero is Anti-Christ; that the End of the World was near at hand; that it should happen in the time of Antoninus; that Rome should soon be destroyed 948 years after its Foundation, and many other Things that could never be asserted by later Christians, who would have been very far from admitting such No∣tions, when they were convinced of the falsity of these Predictions. Upon the whole matter it ought to be concluded, that the Books of the Sibyls were certainly forged in the Second Century, but it is difficult to determine the precise time, and by whom this was done; all that can be alledged as most probable is, that they began to appear about the end of the Reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius m 1.67

M. Vossius in his last Book gives us an Hypothesis of the Sibylline Oracles somewhat different from this; he acknowledgeth that the ancient Writings of the Sibyls which were preserved until the burn∣ing of the Capitol, were entirely prophane, and differed from those that are cited by the Fathers; But he maintains, that among those that were brought from Greece by Octacilius Crassus, there were some Prophecies inserted that had been received from the Jews, who pretended that they were written by the Sibyls, in which the Coming of the Messiah was foretold, and that these were cited by the Fa∣thers under the Name of The Books of the Sibyls, which Title was actually attributed to them.

This Hypothesis, which is well enough contrived, yet lies liable to many Difficulties; for first, the Collection of Oracles ascribed to the Sibyls, that was made after the burning of the Capitol, related no less to the Pagan Superstitions, than the ancient Verses ascribed to the Sibyl of Cuma. Secondly, Since the Predictions concerning Jesus Christ, expressed in the passages of the Sibylline Books, and quoted by the Fathers, are clearer than those that were contained in the Prophecies of the Jews, there is no pro∣bability that they could proceed from any of that Nation. Lastly, The Doctrine comprised in the Books of the Sibyls, seems rather to be that of a Christian than of a Jew, since the Coming of Jesus Christ, is therein manifestly foretold; the Resurrection of the Dead, the Last Judgment, and Hell Fire, are expresly described in plain Terms; and mention is made of the Millennium, of the appea∣ring of Anti-Christ, together with many other Things of the like nature, which could not be rela∣ted, but by one that had been instructed in the Christian Religion. Therefore it is much more pro∣bable, that the Writings attributed to the Sibyls were forged by a Christian, rather than by a Jew.

However, none ought to be surprised that we reject those Books as supposititious, which have been quoted by the Ancients as real, and it must not be imagined, that we thereby contemn the Autho∣rity of the Fathers, or that we impugn the Truth; on the contrary, we should do an Injury to it, if we should endeavour to support it by false Proofs, especially when we are convinced of their Forgery. The Fathers are to be excused for citing the Sibylline Verses as true, because they had not examined them, and finding them published under the Name of the Sibyls, they really believed that they were theirs; but they that are certainly informed of the contrary, would be inexcusable if they continued to rely on such Testimonials, or refused ingenuously to confess what the Truth obliged them to own. And indeed it ought not to be admired, that the Fathers did not examine these Books critically; it is sufficiently known, that they wholly applied themselves to Matters of the greatest Consequence at that time, and that they often happened to be mistaken in prophane Histo∣ries, and to cite fictitious Books; such are the Works of Hystaspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus, which they almost always joyned with those of the Sibyls; as also the Acts of Pilate, Apocryphal Gospels, divers Acts of the Apostles, and a great number of other Records that have been undoubtedly forged.

But altho' the most part of the ancient Writers cited the Oracles of the Sibyls, yet there were even then many Christians that rejected them as Counterfeit, and could not be perswaded to approve the practice of those that made use of their Testimony, whom in derision they called by the Name of Sibyllists. This is attested by Origen, in his Fifth Book against Celsus: Celsus (says he) objects, that there are Sibyllists amonst us, perhaps, because he hath heard it reported, that there are some a∣mongst us who reprove those that affirm, that the Sibyl is a Prophetess, and call them Sibyllists. St. Au∣gustine hath likewise acknowledged the falsity of these pretended Oracles; and as often as he makes mention of them, he declares that he is not convinced of their Truth, particularly in Lib. 18. c. 45. De Civit. Dei. Were it not (says he) that it is affirmed, that the Prophecies that are produced under the Name of the Sibyls and others concerning Jesus Christ, were feigned by the Christians. And in cap. 47. It may be believed, that all the Prophecies relating to Jesus Christ, that are not contained in the Holy Scri∣ptures, have been forged by the Christians: Wherefore there can be nothing more solid in confuting the Pagans, than to alledge those Prophecies that are taken from the Books of our Enemies.

But the Heathens (say they) doubted not of the truth of the Predictions of the Sibyls that were urged by the Fathers; they only put another sense upon them, nay they even proceeded so far as to own, that the Sibylline Verses foretold the Nativity of a certain new King, and a considerable Revo∣lution. This is mentioned by Tully in divers places; moreover when Pompey took the City of Jerusa∣lem, it was commonly reported, that the Sibyl had foretold, that Nature designed a King for the People of Rome; the Senate was likewise astonished at it, and, by reason of this Prediction, refused to send a General, or an Army, into Egypt. Lentulus (according to the Testimony of Cicero and S••llust) flatter▪d himself, that he should become this King that was intimated by the Sibyl. Others have interpreted this Prophecy, with respect to Julius C••sar or Augustus, as is observed by Cicero and Suetonius. Virgil, in his Fourth E••logue, produceth the Verses of the Cuman Sibyl, foreshewing the Birth of a new King that should de••oend from Heaven. In short, it is most certain, that the Gentiles acknowledged that the Books of the Sibyls were favourable to the Christians, insomuch that the later were prohibited to read them, as appears from the Words of Aurelian to the Senate, recited by Vopiscus. I admire, (says he) Gentlemen, that you should spend so much time in consulting the Writings of the Sibyls, as if we were debating in an Assembly of Christians, and not in the principal place of the Roman Religion.

These Arguments seem to be very plausible, but if we examine them, we shall find that they con∣tain nothing that is solid: The Pagans never submitted to the Authority of these Books of the Sibyls that were quoted by the Fathers; on the cantrary it is manifest, that Celsus was perswaded that they were forged by the Christians; and St. Augustine plainly declares, that this was the general Opinion of all the Gentiles. The Sibyl••••e Verses mentioned by Tully were Paracrosticks, that is to say, the first Verse of every Sentence comprehended all the Letters in order, that began the following Verses; now among all the Verses of the Sibyls, only those cited by Constantine are composed in Acrosticks. As for the Asse••tion, that in the time of P••••pey, Julius Caesar, and Augustus, there was a general report, that it was ••oretold in the Sibylline Books, that a new King should be born within a little while; we may easily reply with Tully, that the Verses attributed to the Sibyls by the Heathens were made after such a manner, that any sense whatsoever might be put upon them; and that, perhaps, mention might be made therein of a certain future King, as it is usual in this kind of Prophecies. Therefore when the Grandeur of Pompey began to be formidable to the Roman Empire, they thought it fit to make use of this pretence, to prevent him from going into Egypt with an Army. And Lentulus, to whom this Charge was committed, being Governor of Syria, vainly flattered himself with this Prediction, which •…•…ight peradventure be further confirmed by the Prophecies of the Jews, who ex∣pected the Coming of the Messiah, believing that he ought to be their King.

Afterwards when it happened that Julius Caesar, and Augustus after him, actually made them∣selves Masters of the Roman Empire, the Prophetical Expressions of the Sibyls were interpreted in their favour▪ neither was it necessary on this account, that they should clearly point at the Coming of Jesus Christ, ••s it is expressed in the Writings of the Sibyls that are alledged by the Fathers; but it was sufficient, that they mentioned a future King, which is the usual practice of all those that un∣dertake to utter Predictions of extraordinary Events. This gave occasion to Virgil, who intended in his fourth Ec••••gue to compose Verses in Honour of Pollio his Patron, as also to Extol Augustus at the same time, and to describe the Felicity of his Reign; this, I say, afforded him an opportunity to do it with greater Majesty, to make use of the name of the Sibyl▪ and to pronounce these Verses:

Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis ••t as; Mag•…•… ab integro 〈◊〉〈◊〉 n••scitur or do: Jam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 progenes C•…•… alto; Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.

By which nothing else is meant, but that at the Nativity of Saloninus the Son of Pollio, under the Consulate of his Father, and the Reign of the greatest Prince in the World, the Golden Age should return, as it was foretold by the Sibyl; That Plenty and Peace should flourish throughout the whole Universe, and that the Virgin Astr••••, the Goddess of Justice, who had abandoned the Earth at the beginning of the Iron Age, should descend again from Heaven: What is there in all this, that re∣sembles the Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ? Or rather, what is there that is not altogether pro∣phane, and ••••gned by an Heathen Poet, who only makes use of the Sibyls Name to flatter the Am∣bition of Augustus, and to add greater Authority and Lust••e to that which he says in his Com∣mendation? Lastly, the Words of Aurelian do not intimate, that the Christians were forbidden by the Pagans to read the Sibylline Books, but only that the Christians looked upon them as prophane Writings, which in no wise related to their Religion, and to which they gave no Credit.

THE Books that are attributed to Hystaspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus, and cited likewise by the ancient Fathers, are not more Genuine than the Verses of the Sibyls. There is nothing now extant of Hystaspes, and this A•…•… was altogether unknown to the ancient Heathens; but the same thing connot be said of Mer••••ri•••• Sirnamed Trismegistus n 1.68, who is mentioned by the most

ancient Pagan Writers o 1.69 as an incomparable Person, and an Inventer of all the Liberal Arts and Sciences. He was an Egyptian, and more ancient than all the Authors, whose Works are still ex∣tant: * 1.70 He is believed to be as Old as Moses; he either wrote, or at least it is said that he wrote, Twenty five, or Thirty thousand Volumes. But we have only two Diologues at present under his Name, one whereof is called by the Name of Poemander; and the other of Asclepius, who are the principal Speakers. The first Treatise is concerning the Will of God, and the second Treats of the Divine Power; these have been cited by the ancien•• Fathers, to prove the Truth of our Religion, by the Authority of so famous an Author. But it is certain that they cannot be his, p 1.71 for the Author of these Treatises is a Modern Platonick Christian, who argues from the Principles of that Phi∣losophy, and hath taken from the Holy Scripture, that which he writ concerning the Word of God, and the Creation of the World.

IT were needless to shew the falsity of a Letter attributed to Lentulus, and directed to the Senate * 1.72 and People of Rome, concerning the Actions of Jesus Christ, since the Forgery is apparent: It is pretended to have been written by Lentulus, as Governour of Jerusalem, altho he never was so; the Superscription thereof is inscrib'd to the Senate and People of Rome; whereas ever since there were Emperors, it was the general Custom among the Governours of Provinces to write immediately to them: Moreover the Contents of this Letter are ridiculous, there is a mean and unworthy Deseription of the Person of Jesus Christ; as particularly it is said, that his Hair was of a light Colour, long and loose after the manner of the Nazarenes; the style is also very far from the Purity and Elegancy of the Age wherein Augustus lived. In short, this Letter is not so much as mentioned by any of the ancient Writers.

THE Letter of Pilate to Tiberius on the same Subject, concerning the Miracles of Jesus Christ seems * 1.73 to be more Authentick; for it is recorded by Tertullian in his Apologotick, that Tiberius being informed of the supernatural and wonderful Operations, that were performed by our Saviour in Pale∣stine, which were so many Testimonies of his Divinity, made report thereof to the Senate, and determi∣ned, that he ought to be Enrolled among the Gods; but that the Senate having rejected this Pro∣position, Tiberius nevertheless persisted in his Opinion, and forbad his Subjects to persecute the Chri∣stians. It is added, a little after by the same Author, that Pilate being a Christian in his Heart, wrote to Tiberius concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eusebius in the second Book of his History Chap. 2. produceth this passage of Tertullian, and giving a large Account how the same of our Sa∣viour was spread abroad, and came to the Ears of Tiberius, he says, that Pilate sent a Letter to the Emperor, according to the usual Custom of the Governors of Provinces, who were obliged to give an Account of the most remarkable Occurrences that happened within their Jurisdiction, and that he wrote to him concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, avouching that he had been informed of his Miracles by many, and that a great number of People esteemed him as a God, after he rose again from the Dead. We find in the Orthodoxographa, after the Epistle of Lentulus another attributed to Pilate and directed to Tiberius, wherein the same things are contained. But it is difficult to determine whether this Letter was extant in the time of Eusebius, or afterwards forged from his Story. How∣ever, there are divers learned Men, that doubt of the Truth of this History, which hath but very lit∣tle probability in its Foundation; for what Likelihood is there that Pilate should transmit these things in writing to Tiberius, relating to a Man whom he had condemned to Death? And altho▪ he had written them, is it credible that Tiberius should have made a Proposition to the Senate, for the ad∣mitting this Person into the number of the Gods upon the bare report of a Governour? And if he had propounded it, who can doubt but that the Senate would have immediately submitted to his Judgment? Therefore, tho' this Relation cannot be absolutely Charged with Falsehood, yet it ought at least to be accounted as dubious. [Dr. Pearson late Bishop of Chester in his Lectures upon the Acts of the Apostles (p. 64, 65.) vindicates the Truth of this Story against the Objections of Tana∣quil

F•••••••• so fully▪ that I shall set down his Reasons at large: And 1. He says, that T•…•… might have taken his Information from the Acts of the Senate, wherein the Votes and Acts of every day were ••••••stantly set down. 2. He observes from S••••••••••ius, that Tiberius acquainted the Senate with every thing that he was informed of, whether publick or private, of great or of little Concern. 3. He observes that Tib••••i••s often took no notice when the Senate decreed things against his own Opinion; and this also is expresly affirmed by 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. The Senate refused to Rank Jesus Christ amongst the Gods out of a Complement to Ti••••••ius, who had before refused Divine Honours, Com∣manding that no Sta•••••••• of his should be Erected in their Temples, unless for Ornament; they might probably theref•••••• suspect that this was propos'd by Ti••••••ius, who never spoke his mind plainly in any thing▪ to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them, who could not attribute those Honours to any Body else which Tiberius had forbidden to be paid to himself, without making that Person greater than Tiberius. 5. It is not probable that Pontius Pilate should neglect so remarkable a thing, as the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, when all the Governours of particular Provinces were obliged to send Relations of every one that was considerable under their Governments to the Emperors who sent them: And the Question is not, ••s F••••••r mis-understood it, whether the Christians then made any considera∣ble Figure in the World; but whether upon Pilate's transmitting an Account to Tiberius, of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem, when he was Procurator of Jud••••, the Emperor did not propose to the Senate that this Jesus Christ might be ranked amongst the Gods; which being positively asserted by Tertulli••n, cannot be disproved by any Negative Arguments that may at this time of day be brought against it.

But tho' these Reasons which are urged by this great▪ Man against Tanaquil Faber, sufficiently vin∣dicate the Truth of Tertullian's Authority in this Matter; yet that is no Argument why the Epistle that go's under Pilate's Name should be Genuine. Pilate sent this Account of Jesus Christ in the Acts of his Administration, not in a particular Letter to the Emperour. The Acts are quoted by Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and St. Chrysostome, and this Letter was made in all probability when the Ori∣ginal Acts were lost.]

BUT we have reason to reject the Thirteen Epistles, as well those of Seneca to St. Paul, as the o∣thers * 1.74 of St. Paul to Seneca, as undoubted Forgeries; altho' St. Jerome, and St. Augustine seem to own them as Authentick. For (1) These Epistles are not written according to the style of St. Paul, nor in that of Seneca q 1.75. 2. It is declared therein, that in the Fire that happened in Rome under Nero, there were only 132 Houses burnt, which is a manifest falshood since it is certain, that a great part of the City was consumed as Tacitus informs us r 1.76. 3. The date of these Letters is false s 1.77. 4. They contain nothing that is worthy of Seneca, or of St. Paul. t 1.78 Lastly, it may be easily discer∣ned, that they were feigned by some Persons, merely to gratifie their Fancy, and to Exercise their Fa∣culty of Invention.

A late Author acknowledging, that the Epistles extant at this day under the Name of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca are counterfeit, and yet not daring to affirm, that St. Jerom and St. Au∣gustine, who believed them to be Genuine were deceived, hath imagined that the real Letters of St. Paul to Seneca, and of Seneca to St. Paul were lost since their time; and that those that we now have in our Possession, were substituted in their room. But besides that the respect that we have for these two Fathers, ought not to hinder us from believing, that they might be mistaken in a matter of so little moment u 1.79: it is also to be observed, that they do not positively assert, that those Epi∣stles were Authentick, but only that they were generally reputed to be so; and that they were read un∣der their Names: x 1.80 Moreover it might be easily demonstrated, that the Letters which remain in

our hands at present, and those that were extant in the time of St. Jerom are the same, for he de∣clares that Seneca wished in one of his Epistles, to be among his Followers, what St. Paul was a∣mong the Christians, which bears a great Analogy with what we find in the 11th Letter of Seneca to St. Paul y 1.81. It is not known, when or by whom these Epistles were forged, and it is difficult to de∣termine, whether it were on their Account, that there is this passage in the false Acts of the Passion of St. Linus, that Seneca and St. Paul wrote divers Letters one to another; or whether the Narrative of this Author, gave the hint to those that forged these Letters, as Cardinal Baronius conjectures.

LAstly among all the profane▪ Monuments that might be quoted for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Christian Religion, none seems to be more considerable than this passage of Josephus, taken * 1.82 from Book 18. chap. 4. of his Jewish Antiquities, wherein he declares: That, at that time there was a wise Man named JESUS, (if we may only call him a Man; for he wrought many Miracles, and taught the truth to those that received it with joy,) who had a great number of Disciples, as well among the Jews as the Gentiles; that he was the CHRIST, and that being accused by the chief of his Nation, he was crucified by Pilat's Order: That nevertheless, he was not abandoned by those ▪that loved him, because he had appeared unto them alive on the Third day, as was foretold by the Prophets, and that he was the Au∣thor of the Sect of the Christians, which remains at this day.

This Testimony of Josephus is produced by Eusebius, St. Jerome, and several others after them, as a Record very important for the establishing of the Christian Faith; but in these later times, when Matters began to be examined more accurately, there have been, and there are even at present ma∣ny learned Men, who maintain that this passage doth not really belong to Josephus, and it must be Confessed, that their Conjectures are not altogether to be disallowed, for they affirm,

1. That the style is intricate, not very fluent, and different from that of Josephus, whose▪ Expres∣sions are generally clear and elegant.

2. That it is evident, that this passage was inserted afterwards into the Texts of Josephus; because the Coherence of the following Sentence is interrupted; for immediately after the end thereof, we read, About that time the Jews began to be afflicted again, with another Calamity, words that have no manner of Relation to what went before, concerning our Saviour: but which manifestly appertain to the Account of the Massacre of the Jews, whom Pilate had caused to be slain in Jerusalem, that came just before this passage concerning Jesus Christ; which plainly shews (say they) that it doth not belong to Josephus, and that it hath been afterwards added.

3. They argue, that in case this passage were taken seperately, yet even then it might be easily per∣ceived, that those are the words of a Christian, and not of a Jew; since Jesus Christ is therein called God, his Miracles and Resurrection is acknowledged, and it is declared, that these things were fore-told by the Prophets; How can it be imagined that this should proceed from a Jew, especially Jo∣sephus, who seems to doubt of the Miracles recorded in the Books that were written by Hebrew Authors?

4. What probability is there, that Josephus a Person extremely addicted to the Interest of his own Nation, should speak so honourably of Jesus Christ, whom he did not believe to be the Messiah, (as is observed by Origen in his Book against Celsus) and that he should accuse his Country-men, as having unjustly put him to Death?

5. Josephus describing in the same Book, Chap. 8. the Martyrdom of St. James, declares, that he was the Brother of Jesus Christ; now if he had made mention of him in some of his preceding Chap∣ters, he would not have failed to take notice thereof, or at least, he would in this place have added somewhat in his Commendation.

6. This Testimony (say they) is not only unknown to the Authors that lived before the time of Eusebius: but Origen expresly denies, that Josephus wrote any thing concerning our Saviour; It is very strange, (says he in Tom. 2. in Matth.) That Josephus who did not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Messiah, should give so Authentick a Testimony concerning the Innocency of St. James. Would he have spoken to this effect, if there had been in his time so remarkable an Evidence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Works of Josephus, as that which is now extant therein? Theodoret hath also observed, that Josephus knew not our Saviour. But nothing is more considerable than the silence of Photius as to this Matter, who making an exact Epitome of the Books of Josephus, takes no notice of this pas∣sage concerning Jesus Christ, which he would not have omitted, if it had been then found in all the * 1.83 Copies of the Writings of Josephus, and if he had believed that it was written by him.

Lastly, that which deserves a more particular Reflection is, that it is remarkt by Photius in another place, that there was extant in his time a Book concerning the Universe attributed to Josephus, which he judged to be fictitious, in regard that Jesus Christ is too honourably mentioned therein, and he adds afterwards, that he hath been since informed that this Book was written by Caius a Priest of

Rome; Perhaps this passage▪ which is at pr••sent in his A••••iquiti••••, was taken from this 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who ••ere the Name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

H•…•… replys to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Testimonies of Ori••••••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Photi••••, that those Authors happened to meet with certain Manuscripts of Joseph••••, in which this passage had been struck out by the Jews: But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Answer see•…•… rather to weaken its Authority; for i•• there were ancient Manuscripts, wherein it was not expressed, we have yet more reason to doubt of its Veracity; and the Arguments that have been already produced▪ ••••••••••ciently shew, that it is more probable▪ that it hath been added in some Manuscripts by the Christians, than left out in others by the Jews. However, I shall not under∣take to deside this Question, but shall leave it to the Judgment of the Reader to determine; whe∣ther the Authority of Euse••ius, St. Jer••••••e, and all the Manuscripts of Josephus that we have at pre∣sent in our Possession, ought to be preferred before the above-cited Conjectures of the learned, the general Testimonies of Origen, Theo••••ret and Photius, and perhaps some ancient Manuscripts of Jo∣sep••••s, that are long ••ince l••s••.

HERMAS.

THERE are Three things to be examined in this Book of the Pastor, attributed to Hermas, which is one of the most famous Books of Antiquity. a 1.84 1. Who is the Author thereof? 2. Whether it be Canonical or not? 3. Whether it be a useful Book; as also, whether it deserves the Esteem and Reputation that it formerly had?

The first Question may be easily determined. It bears the Name of Hermas, and all the ancient Writers have cited it under this Name; it appears likewise from the Antiquity thereof, that it might possibly be written by that Hermas, whom S. Paul salutes at the end of his Epistle to the Romans. Origen, Eusebius and S. Jerom have made no difficulty of asserting it; however, it cannot be doubted, but that the Author of this Book was called Hermas, and that the Name of Hermes hath been at∣tributed to him by some Authors through a mistake, which gave occasion to certain Modern Writers, to ascribe this Book to one Hermes, the Brother of Pope Pius I. b 1.85 But this Imagination is suffici∣ently refuted by the Testimony of all the ancient Fathers, who constantly call him Hermas, besides the Author of this Book was a Greek, and his Writings were more known amongst the Greeks, than

the Latins, as is observed by S. Jerom, which would not have happened, if it had been Composed by the Brother of Pope Pius. * 1.86

As for the Authority of this Book, it is certain that it hath been heretofore received in many Churches as Canonical, and that S. Irenaeus, S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and even Tertullian in Lib. de Oratione, cite it as a part of Holy Scripture; nevertheless it cannot be doubted, that it hath been rejected by divers other Churches, c 1.87 and esteemed only as a Treatise, that might be used to very good purpose for the Edification of Christians: But there have been very few ancient Authors, that have not set a high Esteem on this Book, and it hath been almost always cited by the Fathers, as a Work of great Authority d 1.88.

It hath not been so much valued by Modern Authors, and there are very few at present that com∣mend it; or that have the same regard to it, as those that lived in the primitive Ages of the Church. And indeed, if we may judge by the Method according to which it is written, and by the things therein contained, it doth not seem to deserve much Esteem. The First part Entituled the Visions is full of many Revelations, that are explained to Hermas by a Woman representing the Church; they all relate to the State of the Church, and the manners of the Christians. The Second part which is most useful, is called the Ordinances, wherein are comprized divers Precepts of Morality, and pious Instructions, which the Pastor or Angel of Hermas prescribes to him. The Third Part is called The Similitudes, because it begins with several Similes or Comparisons, and concludes with Vi∣sions. These three Books comprehend very many Moral Instructions concerning the Practice of Christian Virtues; but the great number of Visions, Allegories, and Similitudes, make them tedi∣ous, and all these Moral Truths would, in my opinion, have been more useful, if the Author had propounded them simply, as the Apostles have done in their Epistles.

We have lost the Original Greek Text of these three Books; and there remains only a Version which is printed in the Orthodoxagrapha, as also in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and hath been likewise published separately by Barthius, and lastly by Cotelerius, together with the Greek Fragments extra∣cted from ancient Authors. It is not known when, nor by whom this Translation was composed; some attribute it to Ruffinus; and others affirm, that it was made in the Primitive Ages of Christia∣nity, when the Writings of Hermas were not altogether unknown to the Latins. However it be, this Version is not amiss, since it exactly agrees with the Greek Passages cited by St. Clement, Origen, Antiochus, and some other ancient Writers.

[There have been other Editions of Hermas's Pastor, besides these which M. Du Pin mentions: It was first published by Jacobus Faber at Paris, 1513. Then at Strasburg, 1522. And it was lately published from two MS. Copies at Oxon, with short Notes in 12^o. A. D. 1685.]

S. CLEMENS ROMANUS.

ST. Clement the Disciple, and Coadjutor of the Apostles a 1.89, was ordained Bishop of Rome after S. Anacletus b 1.90, in the year of our Lord 93. Divers Books are attributed to him, some of * 1.91 which are really his, others are ancient tho' supposititious, and others are both counterfeit and modern: And indeed we can only reckon among those that were certainly composed by this Bi∣shop the two Epistles to the Corinthians, the first whereof, so famous among the ancient Authors c 1.92, was undoubtedly written by him. Irenaeus Book 3. chap. 8. speaks thus. In the time of S. Clement,

(says he) upon occasion of a great Division that happened in the Church of Corinth, the Church of Rome wrote a very pathetical Letter to the Corinthians, to restore them to Peace, wherein she strengthens their Faith, and preacheth those Traditions that they had lately received from the Apostles. This Epistle which is cited by S. Cle••••ns Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius, was for a long time concealed, until at length M. Patrick Young having found it in an ancient Manuscript d 1.93, caused it to be printed at Oxford, Anno Dom. 1633.

After the Holy Scriptures, it is in my opinion one of the most eminent Records of Antiquity. S. Clement, therein exhorts the Faithful of the Church of Corinth, that was in a Disturbance by the revolt of some Christians, who refused to submit to their lawful Pastors, he exhorts them, I say, to a Re-union, and to seek after Peace; particularly he admonisheth them to persevere in the Obedience and Submission that they owed to their Spiritual Guides, he censures those that disturbed the Church, and that promoted secret Cabals against their Ministers on purpose to supplant them; He begins with putting them in mind of the Happiness of that Peace which they had formerly enjoyed; afterwards he represents to them the misfortune of their present Divisions, and proceeds to shew by many Ex∣amples, what lamentable Consequences have always attended it, and how displeasing it is to God: Moreover he adviseth them to repent, in practising Humility, Obedience, and Charity, in imitation of the Humility of Jesus Christ, and the Mercy of God, through the Hope of a Resurrection: From thence he takes an occasion to recommend to the Faithful the Practice of many Christian Virtues, and the Observation of a Regular Discipline: He declares to them, that it was very ill done to rise up against the Pastors and Bishops that were Constituted by the Apostles, or Elected by the Faithful after their Death▪ He aggravates the heinousness of their Crime that were the first promoters of this Division, and earnestly sollicits them to return to their Duty by obeying their Ministers, and by re-uniting themselves with the rest of the Believers. Thus you have an account of the Subject of this Epistle written by S. Clement in the name of the Church of Rome to that of Corinth, about the end of the Persecution raised by the Emperor Domitian. The Style thereof (says Photius) is simple and clear, and it comes very near the natural and artless manner of Expression used by the ancient Ecclesiastical Au∣thors. I shall add, that one may discern a great deal of Energy and Vigour, accompanied with much Prudence, Gentleness, Zeal, and Charity.

The second Epistle of S. Clement is not so certainly known to be his; Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius observe, that there is reason to doubt of its being Genuine, because it is not mentioned by the an∣cient Writers; nevertheless some of the Fathers have cited both these Epistles, as if they were of equal Authority e 1.94. The Fragment that is now extant of this last Letter published in Latin by Wendelinus, and in Greek by Mr. Young, is an Exhortation to the Practice of Repentance, and of divers Christian Virtues on the account of the Mercy of God, and the Reward that is promised to the Faithful.

Besides these two Epistles, several voluminous Books have been attributed to S. Clement even in the Primitive Ages of the Church, that were not his; such were (as Eusebius declares in the third Book of his History, chap. ••8.) the Disputes of S. Peter and Appion, whereof the ancient Authors have made no mention, and which contain Matters that are far from the Purity of the Apostolical Doctrine: We may conjecture, that these Writings were part of the Book, Entituled, Recognitiones Clementis, which is likewise called, The Voyages, Itin••ra••y, or Acts of S. Peter: This Work, tho▪ fictitious, is anci∣ent, being cited by Origen f 1.95, Eusebius, S. Athanasius, S. Epiphanius, S. Jerom, and the Author of The Commentaries on S. Matthew, ascribed to S. Chrysostom: Ruffinus hath made a Translation thereof which is still extant; Gelasius hath inserted it in the Catalogue of Apocryphal Books; and Photius observes, that there are Absurdities and Errors to be found in it: And indeed it is a Writing full of Fables, Tales, Conferences, and ridiculous Disputes, feigned at pleasure, and pretended to be holden between S. Peter and Simon Magus, concerning certain Events and Occurrences that are related after a childish manner; But that which is more dangerous, is, that we may easily discover in several Pas∣sages thereof the Opinions of the Ebionites, tho▪ much palliated, together with many other Errors. In short this Book is of no use, if we reflect on the Style and Method in which it is written, or on the Things that are comprised therein.

I shall not pass the same censure upon the Apostolical Constitutions that are likewise falsly imputed to S. Clement, and which, tho' written by a later Author g 1.96, yet contain many things very useful to the Discipline of the Church; ••t is not known by whom, nor when they were composed h 1.97; All that can be certainly affirmed is, that they are cited by S. Epiphanius i 1.98, and the Author of The Commentary on S. Matthew, falsly attributed to St. Chrysostom; but the passages which are produced by them not perfectly agreeing with those that are found in the Constitutions which are extant at this day, we may be induced to conjecture that they have been since corrupted, and so much the rather, because they are infected with the Arian Heresie k 1.99. and several other Errors. This is the Judgment that was given concerning them by the Greek Bishops in the Synod that was conven'd in the Imperial Pa∣lace of Constantinople after the fifth General Council. However I admire that the Learned Photius l 1.100 hath not made this Observation, and that he hath imputed the Errors of this Book to its Primitive Author.

It remains only to enquire, whether this Book be the same as that which is mentioned by Eusebius m 1.101 and S. Athanasius, Entituled, The Doctrine, or the Precepts, of the Apostles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is the Opinion of Nicephorus n 1.102, Zonaras, and Matthaeus Blastares; but it seems to me to be most probable, that The Constitutions of the Apostles, and the Book called their Doctrine, were two different Works which the likeness of their Titles hath caused to be confounded o 1.103

It is therefore extremely difficult to determine when the Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles first appeared, since the Author of them is absolutely unknown, neither can it be proved whether they were at first the same as they are now. We can only conjecture, that it is most probable that the Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles, or St. Clement belong to the third, or rather the fourth Century, and that they have been from time to time corrected, altered, and augmented, according to the va∣rious Customs of different Ages and Countries p 1.104.

Those that we have at present are not in Greek. Crabb gives us a Latin Epitome of them in his second Edition of the Councils, Pinted Anno 1557. The first entire Version that ever appeared, was made by Bovius, and inserted by Surius in the Collection of Councils, which he set forth in the years 1567, and 1585. Nicolinus published another Translation of the Constitutions composed by Tur∣rianus, together with the Annotations of the same Author; this was Printed at Venice in 1563, and at Antwerp in 1578. Afterwards Binius caused it to be Re-printed in his first Edition of the Councils, Anno Dom. 1606. but he did not think fit to allow it a place in his second Edition of the year 1608. Fronto Ducaeus, a Jesuit, is the first that published a Greek and Latin Edition of those Constitutions at the end of Zonaras, which was annexed to the new Collection of Councils. They are divided into eight Books, containing a great number of Precepts relating to Christian Duties, especially to those of Pastors, and concerning the Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church, of all which it would be too tedious to give a particular account. They that are desirous to be further informed, may have recourse to the Titles of the Chapters that are prefixed to these Tracts.

The last Work attributed to S. Clement, is a Collection of divers Pieces, Entituled, Clementinae, and there hath been a Book under this Title for some time: The Author of the Epitome of the H. Scri∣ptures attributed to S. Athanasius mentions them, and after him the Chronicle of Alexandria, Nice∣phorus Callistus in the third Book of his History, chap. 18. S. John Damascen, and some others q 1.105.

Perhaps this is the second Part of the Recognitions cited by Ruffinus, for it is a Continuation of the Preachings and Acts of S. Peter. The Greek and Latin Collection, published by Cotelerius under this Name, contains divers Tracts full of Errors in Philosophy, as also of the Heresie of the Ebionites, and is such another Book as the Recognitions. There must needs have happened some Alteration in these Clementinae, as well because they do not agree with that which is cited from them by Maxi∣mus, and by the Author of the Chronicle of Alexandria, as because they are infected with the Errors of Eunomius; besides, there is a Passage cited by an Author in the Library of the College of Clermont which is not to be found there; and we are informed by Nicephorus, that the Clementinae are an Or∣thodox Work, whereas this (as we have already shewn) abounds with Errors. It contains, first, two Apocryphal Letters, one of which is attributed to S. Peter as written to S. James, wherein he advi∣seth him not to deliver the Book of his Preachings to the Gentiles, which is followed by a Protestation of S. James. The other is a Letter of S. Clement to S. James, which tho' it be ancient, and transla∣ted by Ruffinus, yet is certainly counterfeit; as we shall hereafter shew when we give an account of the Forgeries of the Decretals of the Popes. To these two Epistles there are nineteen Homelies an∣nexed relating to the Voyages, Preachings, and Disputes of S. Peter. Moreover at the end of this Work is likewise inserted an Epitome of the Actions of S. Peter extracted from the Clementinae, the Recognitions, and the Epistle of S. Clement. Cotelerius found three of them in the King's Library, and hath published but one, which is the shortest, formerly published by Turnebus, and Printed at Paris Anno Dom. 1555. All these Writings, which are of very little use because they are full of Errors, are only a Contexture of Fables and idle Tales. Lastly, Cotelerius hath added the Records of the Martyrdom of S. Clement, concerning the Antiquity whereof we have no assurance, and which appear on the contrary to have been composed by the modern Greeks r 1.106.

Now it will not be amiss briefly to recollect all that hath been said concerning the Works of S. Clement, and to declare our Opinion in this matter. The first Epistle to the Corinthians was cer∣tainly written by him, and is a good and useful Treatise. The second is very ancient, tho' not of the same Authority. The Constitutions are an ancient and useful Book falsly imputed to S. Clement, in which many things have been added and altered in process of time, for which Reason several Errors have crept in amongst them. The Recognitions are an Apocryphal Work, ancient indeed, but abound∣ing with Errors and Fables. The same Judgment ought to be given concerning the Clementinae, which are not perhaps so ancient, as also the second Part of the Recognitions. The Book Entituled, The Doctrine of the Apostles, may be the same with the Original Constitutions, but it is more probable that they are a different Work. We can give no account of the Book that bears the Title of The Precepts of S. Clement, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Voyages or Itinerary of S. Peter are the same as the Recognitions and the Clementinae. The Epitome is an Abridgment of these Apocry∣phal Writings. The Acts of the Martyrdom of S. Clement were composed by the modern Greeks. The Discourse of Ephrem is likewise of a later Date. There were also certain Sermons ascribed to S. Clement concerning the Just Judgment of God and Divine Providence cited by Anastasius Antioche∣nus, Quest. 96. but there is no probability of their being his. The five Decretals are counterfeit; and the Revelations or Apocalypse of S. Peter, heretofore thought to have been written by S. Clement, is likewise supposititious. Thus we have given in short the Judgment that (according to our Opinion) ought to be given of all the Books that are, or have been, attributed to S. Clemens Romanus, and all that we judge necessary to be propounded or explained concerning them in this place.

S. DIONYSIUS the Areopagite.

DIONYSIUS the Areopagite; who is reputed to have been a Native of Thrace, a 1.107 after he had been converted by S. Paul, as it is recorded in the Acts b 1.108 of the Apostles; was made Bishop of Athens c 1.109, and suffered Martyrdom d 1.110 in that City. I shall not spend time in proving that he never came into France, and that that S. Denys who was the first Apo∣stle of this Kingdom, is different from the Areopagite; this Question has been so clearly discussed in our time e 1.111, that there is scarcely any one, tho' never so incredulous that can question it. I could also very willingly forbear to give any Account of the Books that are attributed to him, or to shew how they have been forged, were it not that the Design of my Work obligeth me to this undertaking; therefore I shall do it with as much Brevity and Moderation as is possible.

We must observe First, that the manner of the first appearing of those Books ought to be sus∣pected; for it is certain, that being unknown to all Antiquity, they were first quoted by the Severian Hereticks, in a Conference holden between them, and the Orthodox Bishops at Constantinople in the Palace of the Emperor Justinian 532 Years after the Nativity of Jesus Christ. The silence of all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, is without doubt a very great prejudice to them; for who can imagine that so considerable an Author as S. Denys (if these Books had been really Composed by him) should have been unknown to Eusebius and S. Jerom. And who can believe, that if they had known them, they should take no notice of them, when they Composed an exact Catalogue of all the Authors, of whom they had any knowledge; not omitting even those, that had so little Reputation that they were scarcely heard of in the World? Is it possible that Eusebius in making mention of Dionysius the Areo∣pagite in two several plac••s, should not have observed according to his usual Method, that he had written several Books. S. Jer•••• in his Epistle to Magnus doth not omit the Testimony of one single Author, to prove that it is lawful to make use of profane Books, whereas the Writings of S. Denys, might have served as a notable Proof; why then doth he not speak so much as one word concerning them? He gives us an Account in his Catalogue, of Quadratus Bishop of Athens, and of Aristides the Athenian Philosopher; is it possible that S. Denys should be more obscure than these two Writers, or less esteemed by S. Jerom? How could it happen, that all the ancient Writers that mention S. Dio∣nysius the Areopagite, as Dionysius Corinthius, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and the Author of the Dialogues ascribed to S. Caesarius the Brother of S. Gregory Nazianzen, should give us no Inti∣mation of these Books? In short why were these Books which contain many things relating to the Doctrine, and Discipline of the Christian Church, and that would have been of great Authority, as proceeding from so ancient and considerable an Author as S. Dionysius the Areopagite, never cited, ei∣ther for or against any Heretick, or for the Illustration of any point of Discipline before the sixth Age of the Church? Furthermore admitting, that they had appeared even at that time, as Books of whose Antiquity and Truth there could be no scruple; if they had been then produced by the Or∣thodox as antient Records, if they had been rejected by none, would not this be a matter of great moment? But who are they that produce them? they are Hereticks who have been used to quote counterfeit Records. How do they cite them? As uncertain Books, sicut suspicamini, say the Catho∣licks. To what end do they produce them? To establish their Errors. Against whom do they cite them? Against the Orthodox. And what do they reply? This ought to decide the Controversy; let us then hearken to them, and let us give Credit to their Testimony, rather than to that of the Hereticks: How can you prove (say the Orthodox Bishops to the Severian) that these Records which you affirm to belong to S. Dionysius the Areopagite, are Genuine, as you imagine; for if they were his, they could not have been unknown to S. Cyril of happy Memory; but why do we only mention S. Cyril? If S. Athanasius had believed that they had been written by S. Dionysius, would not he have made use of their Authority in the Council of Nice, to prove the Consubstantiality of the Trinity against the blasphemies of Arius? If they have not been cited by any of the ancient Writers, how can you demonstrate, that they were written by him? Thus the Orthodox then argued; but having since perused these Books, and finding nothing therein, that is contrary to the Catholick Faith, they admitted them without much Examination; tho' there have always been some Criticks, who have questioned them. Photius says in the beginning of his Bibliotheca, that one Theodorus wrote a Book by way of reply to the Objecti∣ons that were generally urged against these Books, and he produceth the Objections that were pro∣pounded by this Author, but takes no notice of the Answers that he had annexed to them, which is an Argument that he thought them to be of no great strength.

2. The style and method of these Books, is very far from the manner of writing used in the First and Second Centuries, as being swelling and too much affected; the Author purposely leaves ordi∣nary

and natural Expressions, to make use of those that are lofty and Figurative; he Amplifies every thing, even that which ought to be recited after the most simple manner, he uses a great deal of Ar∣••i••••ce in the disposing of his Periods, and observes an exact Method in the Order of his Arguments; which shews that it was written by a Philosopher, who had leisure to revise and polish it with much Care and Study, which doth not agree with the Character of S. Dionysius the Areopagite, nor with the way of writing in his time.

3. Neither are the Contents of these Books conformable to the Genius of the Age, wherein S. Dio∣••••si••s the A••••••pagite lived. The Christians were employed in these primitive Times, in Composing Three ••orts of Books, Apologies for their Religion, Epistles for the Instruction of the Faithful, and to exhort them to suffer Martyrdom; and Lastly, Treatises against the Hereticks: Now these Wri∣tings attributed to S. Denys plainly relate to another Subject, and have a quite different Design; for his principal Intention is to treat of Mysteries after a curious and ex••uisite manner, and to expound them according to the Principles of Plato's Philosophy, and even in Platonick Terms. He is not con∣tent to propound them with the simplicity of the ancient, but he applies himself nicely to enquire into all the Difficulties that might occur therein, and to raise divers Questions more curious than useful concerning the nature of God, and the different Orders of Angels: He explains the Doctrine of the Trinity more distinctly, even than S. Athanasius himself: He plainly rejects the Errors of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Anthropomerphites. He speaks of the Church as in a prosperous Condition, and enjoyning Peace; neither doth he make any mention of Persecutions or Martyrs: He distinguishes the several Orders of Angels, and observes their difference, things that were unknown to the ancient Writers, and concerning which they were not sollicitous to be informed, as S. Iren••us assures us, in Lib. 2. chap. 55. and S. Cyril Catech. Illum. 11. Upon the whole matter, if we compare these Writings, with those of the other ancient Authors, we shall find that there can be nothing more different, either as to their style, and method, or as to the matters therein contained.

We shall now proceed to give particular Proofs whereby it will plainly appear, that these Books were not written by S. Dionysius the Areopagite, and there are Two sorts of these, some proving that they cannot belong to S. Denys, others shewing that they were Composed by an Author who lived after the Fourth Century. I shall begin with the Arguments which prove that those Books do not belong to S. Denys. 1. The Author of the Book, de Divinis Nominibus, Dedicates it to Timothy, and then cites an Epistle of S. Ignatius. Now Timothy was dead when S. Ignatius wrote his Epistles, and Onesimus succeeded him; and besides, he calls Timothy his Son, and yet he must needs be older than S. Denys. 2. He cites and explains the Gospel according to S. John, and the Apoca∣lypse, which were scarcely written when S. Dionysius the Areopagite was alive: And yet he declares in those Books, that he was but a young Man. He cites the Revelation, as undoubtedly included in the Canon of Holy Scripture, and yet it was very much questioned in the primitive Ages of the Church, whether it were Canonical or not. The same Reflection may be likewise made upon his Ci∣tations, taken from the Second Epistle of S. John, and that of S. Jude. 3. He rejects the Error of the Millenaries which could not have appeared in his time. 4. He expresly produceth in Lib. de Divinis Nomin. chap. 4. certain Passages out of the Epistle of S. Ignatius to the Romans, written by this Bi∣shop a little before his Martyrdom; whereas S. Ignatius was put to Death under the Reign of the Emperor Trajan, and S. Dionysius the Areopagite, under that of Domitian, and consequently the la∣ter was dead, when the former wrote this Epistle. Maximus replies that this Citation is added, but there are Three or four entire Lines that relate to this matter, which there is no reason to disallow. 5. This Author affirms, that he was present at the Death of the Virgin Mary, but S. Dionysius the Areopagite was not Converted at that time; for it is generally believed, that she died Fifteen years after the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and S. Paul who Converted S. Denys came not to Athens till Se∣venteen years after our Saviour's Passion.

Lastly, there are many Reasons, by which it may be proved, that this Author wrote after the Fourth Century; For, 1. He treats of the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation in such Terms as were not known till after the Fourth Age of the Church; he used the word Hyposta∣sis to signifie the Divine Persons, (c 7. Coelest. Hier. c. 1. de Divinis Nominibus) whereas it is well known, that this word was not used in this Sense, till after the end of the Fourth Century. 2. In Lib. de Coelesti Hierarchia cap. ult. He confirms the Baptism of Infants by an ancient Tradition: We declare that (says he) which our Bishops have taught us according to an ancient Tradition. Could this have been written by S. Dionysius the Areopagite, or rather, doth not this shew, that he that discourseth thus, is a much later Author than this Bishop of Athens? 3. He describes the solemn Administration of Baptism as it was, when the Church being delivered from Persecution, began to practice the ancient Ceremonies with exteriour Pomp and Splendour. 4. He speaks of Churches built on purpose, where∣in there was a Sanctuary separated from the rest of the Churches; as also of the per••uming of Altars with incense, and of divers Ceremonies relating to the E••••rgumens, Catecumens, and Pe••••tents, which were not observed in those Primitive times. 5. It is certain, that the Institution of Monks is not so ancient as S. Denys, and that they were not consecrated till long after the Age wherein he lived. Yet the Author of the Divine Hierarchy in chap. 6. mentions them, as being more ancient than himself, and adds, that his Instructers called them T••••rapeutae or Monks; and he gives an Account of the man∣ner of their Consecration, and distinguisheth several sorts of them. 6. He often cites the Ecclesiasti∣cal Authors that lived before him, who wrote concerning matters that were only debated in the 4th. Century, such were the distinctions between Love and Charity, the Opinions relating to the several Functions and Orders of Angels, as also the Lot by which St. Matthias was elected, the Prayers that

were recited at Mass, which he declares to have been received from their Ancestors by Tradition; The Baptism of Infants, of which he affirms the same thing; The Funeral Rites and Solemnities, the Ceremonies of Baptism, and many other Customs. Lastly, he cites St. Clemens Alexandrinus under the name of Clement the Philosopher, and the passage of this Author produced by him, is taken from Stromat. lib. 8. which shews that he speaks of St. Clement, who lived in the Third Age of the Church.

However many Arguments are alledged to prove the Verity and Antiquity of these Books, which nevertheless may be very easily confuted in a few words. It is objected first, That it is affirmed, by Maximus, Anastasius Sinaita, and Cypari••••••••••••, that St. Dionysius Alexandrinus composed Scolia or An∣notations on the Books of Dionysius the Areopagite de Nominibus Divinis. 2. That St. Athanasius in Quest. 4. ad Antiochu••, and Origen, in his first Homily on St. John quotes the Writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, and that St. Gregory the Great calls him an ancient Father; St. Gregory Nazianzen seems likewise to cite him in Hom. 38, and 42, where after having declared that the repetition of the word Holy thrice, relates to one and the same Lordship, and to one and the same Divinity, he adds, as another hath very excellently and very clearly Philosophized before us, which may well be applied to the Author of the Hierarchy, who lived before the time of St. Gregory Nazianzen, and whose Philo∣sophy was very sub••••••e. Moreover S. Denys is cited by S. Chrysostom in his Sermon of false Prophets; Where is (says he) St. Ignatius the Tabernacle of God, where is Dionysius the Areopagite, the Eagle of Heaven? designing by this Expression to set forth the magnificence of his style. There is a com∣parison in Lib. de Divinis Nominibus, chap. 3. of an Anchor that attracts us to it more than we drew it to us, which S. Clemens Alexandrinus seems to have taken from S. Denys. Lastly, Nicephorus af∣firms, that Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, who assisted at the Council of Chalcedon, in replying to Pulcheria concerning the Sepulchre and Death of the Virgin Mary, made use of the words of S. Dio∣nysius the Areopagite. All these Arguments seem to prove, that the Books de Hierarchia & de No∣minibus Divinis, were written by S. Denys, or at least that they are more ancient than the Fourth Century.

But if we examine these Objections, they will appear all very weak: For, 1. We ought not to believe on the Testimony of Anastasius and Maximus, that Dionysius Alexandrinus, the Disciple of Origen, composed any Annotations upon the Writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, since Eusebius and St. Jerom, who took a Catalogue of the Works of this Saint, did not mention it; whence we ought to infer, either that it was another Dionysius Alexandrinus, or that some Grecian hath forged Com∣mentaries on the Books attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, under that name. 2. The Book Entituled, Quaestiones ad Antiochum, cited under the name of St. Athanasius, and the Homilies on several places of the New Testament ascribed to Origen are alledged to no purpose, because it is cer∣tain that these Books are falsely attributed to St. Athanasius and Origen, as it is generally agreed. 3. St. Gregory Nazianzen doth not cite St. Denys by name; Elias Cretensis is of opinion that St. A∣thanasius is here meant, and indeed the passage quoted by St. Gregory Nazianzen concerning the Trisagion is found word for word in one of the Homilies of St. Athanasius, who living before St. Gregory might be cited by him. 4. The Sermon quoted under the name of St. Chrysostom, was without question not written by this Father, but by John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople; and though it really belonged to the former, yet he takes no notice of the Writings of St. Denys, but only extols him as a great Saint. Lastly, it is more probable that the Author of the Treatise De Di∣vinis Nominibus, hath borrowed the similitudes from St. Clemens Alexandrinus, whom he cites in ano∣ther place, than that St. Clement should have taken them from him.

As for the Authority of Nicephorus and other modern Writers, it proves nothing else, but that these Books were attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite when they wrote, and this is agreed on all sides, for after they first appeared in the beginning of the Sixth Century, they soon got a great deal of Reputation and Authority; They are cited by St. Ephrem in a Treatise that he composed in vindication of the Synod of Chaleedon; The Monk Jobius, Andreas Caesariensis, Leontius, Anastasius Sinaita, Suidas, Nicephorus, and many other modern Greeks, make honourable mention of them; and Joannes Scythopolitanus, Maximus, and Pachymeres, wrote Commentaries on this Author. Among the Latins, Gregory the Great cites them with great applause; Joannes Scotus Erigena translated them into Latin, and Anastasius the Library-Keeper sent this Version to Charles the Bald, with a a Preface and Annotations. But the Testimony of these modern Authors is of very little moment in this matter, and only proves, that these Books were then thought to belong to St. Dionysius the Areo∣pagite; On the contrary, the Reasons that we have already alledged are sufficient to convince all Persons that are Ingenuous and of a clear Judgment, that they were forged about the end of the Fifth Century, or at the beginning of the Sixth, for the time when they first appeared cannot be precisely determined; but it is certain, that they were written since the Fourth Century, and before the mid∣dle of the Sixth. Moreover it cannot be affirmed, that the Works of some other Denys might ac∣cidentally be imputed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, it being evident that the Author of these Books affects to seem to have lived in the time of the Apostles.

We shall here subjoyn a Catalogue of the Works that have been published under the name of St. Dionysius the Areopagite; A Book concerning the Caelestial Hierarchy, another of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, a Treatise of the Divine Attributes, another of Mystical Divinity, together with Ten Epi∣stles, whereof the Four first are written to the Monk Cajus, the fifth to Dorotheus, the sixth to the Priest Sosipater, the seventh to the Bishop Polycarp, the eighth to the Monk Demophilus, the ninth to the Bishop Titus, and the tenth to St. John. All these belong to the same Author, who hath

likewise composed some others which are cited by himself; A Book concerning Symbolical Theology f 1.112, another treats of the Soul g 1.113, another of Divine Hymns h 1.114, another of Theological Instructions; a Trea∣tise concerning the just Judgment of God i 1.115, and another of those things that are understood by the Mind, and of those that may be perceived by the Senses k 1.116; but these are lost. The others have been often Printed in Greek and in Latin separately l 1.117, and were published in Greek and Latin by Lanselius at Paris, Anno Dom. 1615, afterwards at Antwerp in 1634, and again at Paris 1644, by the Jesuit Cor∣derius, together with the Commentaries of Pachymeres and Maximus.

St. IGNATIUS.

IGNATIUS Sirnamed Theophorus a 1.118, was the Successor of Evodius b 1.119 in the Episcopal See * 1.120 of Antioch, about the year of our Lord 70. He governed this Church for the space of almost Forty years with admirable Prudence and Constancy, and at last suffered Martyrdom in the Tenth year of the Reign of Trajan, when this Holy Prelate having professed the Faith even in the presence of the Emperor himself with great Courage, (if we may believe the Acts of his Martyr∣dom) was condemned to be exposed to wild Beasts in the Amphitheatre at Rome: And he is reputed to have wrote his Epistles to several Churches in the way as he was carried a Prisoner in Chains to that City, for maintaining the truth of the Christian Religion; but since there are very great diffi∣culties concerning the number and different Editions of these Epistles, it will be necessary to draw up their History, and to produce the Testimony of Authors that have mentioned them since his time.

Immediately after the death of this holy Martyr, Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, his Disciple, colle∣cted these Epistles, and sent them to the Christians of Philippi, as appears from a Letter that he wrote to them, and which cannot be questioned without contradicting not only Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius, the most renowned Criticks of Antiquity, but also S. Irenaeus himself the Disciple of S. Poly∣carp, who cites this Epistle, and commends it in these words: There is an Epistle of Polycarp to the Christians of Philippi, which is extremely accurate, and very proper to shew the character of the Faith, and the Doctrine of the Truth, to those that take any care of their Salvation. Moreover, we have not only an approbation of S. Polycarp's Epistle by S. Irenaeus, to prove the Authority of S. Ignatius's, but it is likewise evident, that this Father had read these Epistles: Irenaeus (says Eusebius) was not igno∣rant of the Martyrdom of S. Ignatius, and mentions his Epistles in these words: Thus one of our Bre∣thren being condemned for maintaining the Faith, to be exposed to the wild Beasts, said, c 1.121 I am the Wheat of God, and shall be ground by the Teeth of wild Beasts, that I may become the Bread of Jesus Christ. The words recited by S. Irenaeus in Lib. 5. contra Haeres. cap. 28. are also found at present in the Epistle of S. Ignatius to the Romans. Origen hath cited the Epistles of S. Ignatius, and that which he produceth in two several places, is read in those that are now extant. I have found it written (says he in his 6th Homily on S. Luke) in the Epistle of a certain Martyr, I mean Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, who was exposed to wild Beasts at Rome, I have found it written (I say) very elegantly, that the Virginity of Mary was unknown to the Prince of this World. This passage is word for word in

the Epistle of S. Ignatius to the Ephesians. The Second passage quoted by Origen is in his Commen∣tary on the Canticles. We remember (says he) the Expression of a Saint named Ignatius in speaking concerning Jesus Christ, my Love is Crucified, and I do not believe that he ought to be reprehended on this Account. These are the Testimonies taken from Authors who wrote in the Second and Third Centuries; in the Fourt, Eusebius cites the Epistles of S. Ignatius, declares their number, and gives us a Catalogue of them. He says in the Third Book of his History, chap. 36. that this Holy Martyr being carried from Asia into Italy confirmed the Churches of the several Cities, through which he passed, in the Faith, and admonished them to avoid Heresies by constantly adhering to the Tradition of the Apostles; and that being arrived at Smyrna, where (l) Polycarp was then Bishop, he wrote four Letters; The first to the Church of Ephesus, wherein he mentions Onesimus their Pastor; The se∣cond to the Magnesians, wherein he speaks of Damas their Bishop; The third to the Trallians, where he names Bishop Polybius; And the last to the Church of Rome, wherein he intreats the Romans not to deprive him through the fervour of their Prayers of the Crown of Martyrdom. Afterwards he recites a large Fragment of this Epistle, and adds, that being departed from Smyrna, and arrived at Troas, he wrote to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Philadelphians, as ••••so to the Church of Smyrna; and particularly to S. Polycarp their Bishop, recommending to him the care of the Church of Antioch, as unto a good Pastor worthy of those Apostolical times. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 likewise a Fragment of the Epistle to the Inhabitants of Smyrna, and confirms what he had before alledged by the Attestations of S. Irenaeus and S. Polycarp. It is evident from this passage, that in the time of Eusebius there were Seven Letters, which were esteemed un∣doubtedly to be S. Ignatius's, and that they were the very same with those that are still extant, be∣cause they were written from the same places, to the same Persons, and on the same Subject, and contain all the Passages that are produced by Eusebius word for word, after whom these very Epistles were unanimously allowed by the whole Church, and cited by an infinite number of Ecclesiastical Authors. S. Athanasius who could not be led by the Authority of Eusebius, whose History perhaps he had never seen, sets down in his Book of the Synods, a passage of this ancient Bishop, which is in the Epistle to the Ephesians. S. Chrysostom in the Oration, that he made in Commendation of S. Igna∣tius, recites this famous Sentence taken from his Epistle to the Romans: Would to God that I might ere long fight with Beasts, and in another Oration, if that be really his, d 1.122 he quotes a passage of the Epistle to S. Polyoarp.

S. Jerom acknowledgeth the Seven Epistles of S. Ignatius mentioned by Eusebius to be Genuine: they are reckoned in his Catalogue of Authors, and cited by him in divers other places of his Works. The Learned Theodoret uses the Authority of the Letters of this Father, as certainly written by him, against the Hereticks, and in his Dialogues produceth many large Passages out of the Epistles to the Smyrneans, Ephesians, and Trallians, that are expressed after the very same manner, as they are Printed in the Editions of Vossius and Bishop Usher. Gelasius likewise cites a passage of the Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna on the same Subject in his Treatise concerning the two Natures of Jesus Christ: The Author of the Book of the Divine Attributes, ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, produceth a Sentence taken from that to the Romans. S. Ephrem in the sixth Century (according to the report of Photius, God. 228.) hath cited the Writings of S. Ignatius: Gildas de Excidio Britanniae, produceth a large passage of the Epistle to the Romans: The Monk Jobius (as it is related by Photius, Cod. 222.) quotes another of that to the Smyrneans: Leontius opposeth the Authority of S. Ignatius to the Here∣ticks in Lib. de Sect. Act. 3. Anastasius Sinaita of the Seventh Century, in his Book Entituled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (The Guide) sets down a passage taken from the Epistle to the Romans, and Antiochus a Monk of Pa∣lestine, in his 124th Homily to Eustathius, concerning the Honour, that is due to the Bishops, recites many passages of those to Polycarp, the Philadelphians and Trallians. S. Maximus acknowledgeth the Works of S. Ignatius, and Theodorus in the Eighth Century (whom Photius mentions Cod. 1.) produceth divers passages thereof, as also Andreas Cretensis a Writer of the Ninth Century, in Hom. 2. de Virgine; and Singelus, in his Panegyrick upon S. Dionysius the Areopagite: To these may be added, Simeon Meta∣phrastes in the Tenth Century, Honorius Bishop of Autun in the Twelfth, Nicetas Choniates in the Thirteenth; and Lastly, Nicephorus Callistus in the Fourteenth: This shews that the Epistles of S. Ig∣natius have been allowed by the Church in all Ages, as authentick Records; but the modern Grecians since the time of S. Joannes Damascen have used other Letters, that are not named by Eusebius, whereas before, the Seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius and S. Jerom were only cited.

Having produced the several Testimonies of the Ancients, concerning the Epistles that are attribu∣ted to S. Ignatius, we shall now proceed to shew what Judgment hath been given by the Moderns concerning the same, and for the better understanding of this matter, it seems to be necessary in the beginning, to set down a Catalogue of the different Editions of these Epistles that have been made in our time.

The first Edition of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, was published at Paris, Anno Dom. 1494. which did not contain any of the Seven that are recited by Eusebius, but only the Three Latin Letters, one whereof

was written to the Virgin Mary, and the other two to S. John. In the Year 1498, Eleven were Printed in Latin, which being revised by Clictovaeus were Reprinted at Strasburg in 1502, 1515, and 1527, as also by Henry Peter at Basil, in 1520. Not long after Champerius added three others, and one written to Maria Cossobolita, which he caused to be Printed at Colen, by Quentelius in 1536. together with the Commentaries of Dionysius Carthusianus on the Works attributed to S. Dionysius the Areopagite; afterwards they were Printed at Antwerp in 1540. at Alcala in 1541. at Basil in 1530, and 1540. at Zurick in 1546, 1550, 1557, and 1560. at Paris in 1569, 1575, and 1610. at Colen in 1570, at Basil in 1569, and 1628. at Louvain in 1568. and at Antwerp in 1572. In the Year 1557, they were set forth at Colen, according to the Version of Perionius, Pacaeus gave us the Greek Text. In 1557, 1558, and 1562 Morellus procured them to be Printed in Greek, at Paris in Octavo. Moreover Gesner published them in Greek, in 1559, with the Translation of Brunnerus. In the Year 1566. they were published at Antwerp, being corrected from certain Manuscripts by Vairlenius, and Printed by Plantin. Mestraeus set forth a new Edition of them in 1608. Vedelius a Protestant caused them to be Printed with large Annotations in Quarto, at Geneva, Anno Dom. 1623. Lastly, Usher having observed, that three English Divines had formerly quoted a passage of S. Ignatius, in the very same words as it is expressed by Theodoret, which was not inserted in the Greek Text, nor in the Vulgar Translations, judged that it might not be difficult to find some Manuscripts of the Original Epistles of S. Ignatius in England; Whereupon having made Enquiry, he happened to meet with two, one in the University of Cambridge, (in Caius College Library;) and another in a private Library of one Richard Mountague, which contained an ancient Version of those Epistles very different from the Vulgar; and afterwards having compared this Translation, with the passages recited by the Fathers, he perceived that it exactly agreed with them, quite through; for which reason, when he set out a new Edition, e 1.123 of the Epistles of S. Ignatius he used them, and cau∣sed the places that were added by the Modern Greeks, to be distinguished, in the Greek Text by red Characters. Not long after, the Learned Isaac Vossius found in the Library of Florence a Greek Ma∣nuscript of the same Epistles, which had been perused about an Hundred years before by Turrianus, wherein the Greek Text perfectly answered to the Version published by Usher, and so he published the Greek Original of S. Ignatius. f 1.124

We may Learn from the knowledge of these Editions, that the Epistles of S. Ignatius ought to be divided into three Classes. The first contains those Three that are only extant in Latin, written to the Virgin Mary and S. John. The Second comprehends those that are in Greek, whereof Euse∣bius and S. Jerom make no mention, which being five in number g 1.125, are cited by some Modern Greeks. In the Third Rank, are comprized those Seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius h 1.126, but these are ei∣ther such as were published before the Editions of Vossius and Usher; or such as are conformable to their Copies, that is to say, more concise, and more simple.

We must likewise distinguish three several Opinions concerning these Epistles: The first is, of those that allow them all, even the three which are written only in Latin, as Faber, Roffensis, Driedo, Ma∣rianus Victorius, Canisius and Halloixius. The last of whom, tho' Living in a clearer Age than the former; yet was not a better Critick than any of them that were before him. We may also reckon almost in the same Rank, those that admit all the Greek Letters, wherein they follow the Opinion

of Cardinal Bellarmin, Bar•…•… and P•…•…vin. The Second is of those who reject all. Calvin was the chief Promoter of this Op•…•…ion, being followed by the Centuriators, by Socinus, and even, after the Editions of Usher and Vossi••s, by 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Albertinus and Daill••, who have used their utmost Endeavours to ruin the Credit of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The Third Opinion is that of those who keeping the middle way, ascribe to S. Ig•…•…ius only the Seven Epistles, that are recited by Euse∣bius and S. Jerom, disallowing all the rest as Supposi••••ious, and owning that there were some Addi∣tions in the others. This has been formerly observed by very Learned Men, even before the Editions of Vossius and Usher appeared, as by Che••••itius, Perkins, Cook and Vedelius, who tho' separated from the Communion of the Church of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, yet were very able Criticks. But since their Editions, the judicious of both persuasions as R••vet, Grotius, Pet••vius, Labbaeus, and the Author of the Offices of the Holy Sacr •…•…ent, have acknowledged that the Seven Epistles of S. Ignatius, which had been corrupted by many Additions, were restored to their Original purity in Vossius's Greek Edition, and in the Ver∣sion published by Usher. M•…•… is the only Person among the Learned, that maintains the contra∣ry Opinion, affirming that the Original Text of those Letters is contained in the ancient Greek Edi∣tion, whereas it is retrenched and corrupted in the later of Vossius. I had almost forgotten to observe, that Usher and some others after him, have rejected the Epistle of S. Ignatius to S. Polycarp; and therefore reckon only fix as Genuine. Thus we have represented the different Opinions concerning the Epistles of S. Ignatius; let us now consider which side we ought to take.

First it is certain, that the Three Latin Epistles, whereof Two are written to S. Iohn, and the Third to the Virgin Mary are forged. S. Bernard is the First that quotes them in his 7th Sermon, on the Psalm Qui habitat; they were unknown to the ancient and modern Grecian Writers; they were never extant in Greek, and the affected gingling of words that appears therein, shews that they were Composed in Latin, and by one of that Nation. Besides they are written in a mean Style, and they are full of useless Notions unworthy of S. Ignatius.

Secondly, neither can it be doubted, but that the Five Greek Letters, which are not quoted by Eusebius and S. Jerom are in like manner counterfeit. For had they been extant when these Authors lived, it were impossible but they should have seen or heard of them. And is it credible that having seen them, they should take no notice of them, when they made a Catalogue of the Epistles of S. Ig∣natius? 2. They were not only unknown to Eusebius and S. Jerom, but likewise to all the Greek Fa∣thers, whose Testimonies we have produced, and who have all cited only the Seven Epistles men∣tioned by Eusebius, the others being quoted only by the more modern Writers: They contain many things that do not agree with the time of S. Ignatius, for there are some Heresies named which did not appear until a great while after his Death: We find an account of Subdeacons, Lecturers, Chanters, Porters, Exorcists, and of those that were called among the Grecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Readers. Now who knows not that these Orders were established after the Decease of S. Ignatius? They mention al∣so Assemblies of Virgins, Lent, the Sabbath, Festivals, &c.

Thirdly, it must be confessed that the Epistles of S. Ignatius such as they were before the Editions of Usher and Vossius, were corrupted, and different from those that are cited by the ancient Writers. 1. Because the passages cited by Theodoret and others, are not conformable to those which we may find in the vulgar Edition. 2. Because if we compare the ancient Edition with Vossius's, it will evi∣dently appear, that the later is not an Epitome of the former, but that the other is a kind of a Pa∣raphrase of this last: for the greater part of the passages which are extant in the ancient Edition, and are not to be found in Vossius's, are Explanations and Paraphrases, or thoughts added afterward, that have no manner of coherence with the rest, and wherein one may find a plain difference in the Style and Doctrine. 3. There are divers things contained in the Vulgar Edition, that cannot belong to the time of S. Ignatius, and which might give an occasion justly to doubt of their Authority, before the Editions of Usher and Vossius were published. As for Example, in that to the Trallians we find the Names of Theodotus and Cleobulus; there are certain passages that confute the Opinion of Satur∣ninus concerning Marriage, and the Errors of Praxeas, mention is also made therein of the Nicolai∣tans, of the lesser Orders, &c. things that by no means suit with those primitive Ages of the Church.

I have now only to enquire whether the seven Epistles, according to the Edition of Vossius were written by S. Ignatius, and the first Question that offers it self to our Examination, is whether this Father wrote any Epistles at all: To which I reply, that it cannot be reasonably doubted: For, 1. This matter of Fact is attested by all Antiquity. 2. It is proved by the above-cited Tradition, that the Authors who saw S. Ignatius, as S. Polycarp, and those that lived immediately after him, as Irenaeus and Origen, knew and quoted these Epistles. Now to believe that they were falsly attributed to him even in their time, is in my opinion great Nonsense; therefore it ought to be taken for gran∣ted, that S. Ignatius wrote Epistles; And who can imagine, that those are not Genuine that were collected by S. Polycarp? Or what likelihood is there that they were lost between S. Polycarp's death, and Eusebius's time, and that others were substituted in their room? Wherefore Eusebius had the Original Epistles of S. Ignatius, and they that succeeded him, whose Testimonies we have already al∣ledged, having without doubt preserved the Seven that are mentioned by him, it cannot be affirmed with any probability that they have cited fictitious Epistles. From whence we ought to conclude, that since all the Passages produced by them may be found word for word in the Editions of Usher and Vossius, it is very probable that they contain the Authentick Epistles of S. Ignatius in their Ori∣ginal Purity. And this Argument is of so much the more force, because this is not only true in the resemblance of one or two Passages, for it were not to be admired that they should agree, since they might have been inserted by an Impostor; but in a very great number that are cited by different

Authors, which makes it much more certain. Besides, there is nothing in these Epistles that does not agree with the Person, and Time of S. Ignatius; there are no Defects in the Chronology, nor any Anachronisms, which are usually found in Supposititious Works; there is no mention made of any Heretick that lived after S. Ignatius; the Errors that are refuted belong to his time, as that of the Simo∣nians and Ebionites concerning the Passion and Divirsity of Jesus Christ; the Tradition of the Church is confirmed according to Eusebius: He speaks of those Gifts of the Holy Spirit that were visible in the Church; he cites very few Passages out of the Holy Scriptures; he imitates the Style of S. Paul, and intermingles nothing of prophane Learning. Upon the whole matter, these Epistles are written with great simplicity, and bear an Apostolical Character; thus all the Arguments that evince the Falsi∣fication, or the Corruption of the other Epistles, invincibly prove the Truth and Purity of these. But this will appear yet further from the Answers to the Objections propounded by Salmasius, Blondel, and Daill••, which we shall set down and confute in a few words, replying only to those that may be alledged against the seven Epistles, as they are Printed in the Edition of Vossius, and omitting the others which do not relate to our Opinion.

Objection, 1. Our Adversaries not being able to produce any considerable Testimonies, at least such as can be esteemed to be of sufficient Authority, and being unwilling to appear to be the first Authors of the Opinion which they maintain, have sought for the Author of the Stichometria, which is pre∣fixed to the Works of Syncellus and Theophanes, and is commonly attributed to Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, tho' it is not certain whether it is his or not. This Stichometria is a Catalogue of the Sacred Books both Canonical and Apocryphal, together with the number of their Verses, at the end whereof are annexed, The Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, the Voyages of St. Peter, and The Doctrine of the Apostles, of St. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas; from whence M. Daille concludes, that this Author hath inserted the Epistles of S. Ignatius among the Apocryphal and Coun∣terfeit Writings.

Answer. First, This Author calls all those Books Apocryphal that are not Canonical, and in this sense the Epistles of S. Ignatius may be reckoned under this Denomination, as the Book of the Pastor, which is styled Apocryphal by those that do not receive it as Canonical, tho' it is very ancient, and was certainly written by him whose Name it bears.

Secondly, This Author doth not mention the Epistles of S. Ignatius or S. Polycarp, and there is no probability that he intended to do it, because his design is to make a Catalogue of the Sacred Wri∣tings both Genuine and Apocryphal; now what Analogy is there between this and the Epistles of S. Ignatius, which being written a long time after the Death of the Apostles, could not be comprized amongst the Books of the Holy Scripture? And indeed if the Epistles of S. Ignatius, and S. Poly∣carp ought to be rejected as fictitious, because this Author hath inserted their Names among the Apo∣cryphal Books of the New Testament, we must likewise reject the Epistle of S. Clement, whose Name is found immediately before; therefore it must necessarily be inferred, that he intended to reject some other Books that were ascribed to S. Clement, to S. Ignatius, and to S. Polycarp, and that the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be understood with relation to these three last; for after having said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Doctrine of the Apostles, he adds without specifying any thing else, of Clement, Ignatius, and Po∣lycarp, that is to say, the Books in like manner Entituled, The Doctrine of Clement, The Doctrine of Ignatius, and The Doctrine of Polycarp; this is the plain sense of that Passage.

Thirdly, Altho' it were granted, that this Author had rejected the Epistles of S. Ignatius, which is not true, of what weight could his Testimony be, against the Tradition that we have even now alledged?

Object. 2. It is said, that these Epistles were unknown to S. Justin, to S. Clement of Alexandriae, and to all the ancient Writers before Eusebius.

Ans. Tho' this were true, yet there are many Books whose Truth is not called in question, that are mentioned by Eusebius alone, and by no other ancient Author; but besides, we have already shewn, that these Epistles are cited by S. Polycarp, S. Irenaeus, and Origen, and that the Passages which they produce, are found in those Letters that we have.

Object. 3. The style (say they) of the Epistles attributed to S. Ignatius, is very different from that of this Father; it is full of lofty Expressions and affected Epithets, which is very far from the sim∣plicity of the Apostolical Times. They say moreover, that the Inscriptions of these Letters are long and full of pompous Epithets.

Ans. The Objections taken from the Style are of little moment; for who hath informed these modern Criticks how S. Ignatius writ? However it is not true, that the Style of these Epistles is far from the simplicity of the ancient Christians; on the contrary, it is very simple, and extremely na∣tural: It must be confessed indeed, that there are some Epithets and compound Words, but this agrees with the Asiatick style, which is generally more florid than that of other Nations? It might also be added, that we find the like Epithets in the Epistle of S. Clement, and in other ancient Authors. The inscriptions are not longer than S. Paul's Epistles, and in the Editions of Usher and Vossius they are not so large nor so magnificent as in the Vulgar, as well as in that of the Epistle to the Romans recited by Metaphrastes.

Object. 4. This Objection is the first of those that are taken from the Contents of the Epistles themselves. It is said, that the Author writes against the Opinion of Saturninus, who believed that Jesus Christ suffered only in Appearance; and of Theodotus, who imagined that our Saviour was a mere Man. Now these two Hereticks are later than S. Ignatius.

Ans. The fast of these Errors was maintained by Simon Magus and Menarder; the other was asserted by Cer••a••us and E••ton, Hereticks who lived in S. Ignatius's time.

Object. 5. This is the principle, or the only Objection that hath any difficulty, it is taken from an Expression in the Epistle to the Magnesians, That the Eternal Word proceeded not from Silence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which seems to be said purposely against the Errors of the Valentinians, who first used the word Silence as a Term of Art.

Ans. If there were no Answer to be given to this Objection, I should rather chuse to affirm, that this Passage is added, than merely on this account to reject the Epistles that are acknowledged as Au∣thentick by all the Ancients. There are many Books wherein some Editions have been made, which make them appear later than they really are; and we find some of this sort in the Bible, in Homer, and in almost all the Ecclesiastical and Prophane Authors. But there is no necessity to make use of this answer, since we have several others that are sufficient to afford reasonable Satisfaction to the Im∣partial and Judicious Reader.

For 1. It is not true that S. Ignatius here speaks of the Silence of the Valentinians, or of any other Notion of the Hereticks that is like it, he only declares, that the Word of God is not like unto that of Men, which comes from, or follows after Silence. These are his Words: There is but one God who hath made himself manifest by his Son Jesus Christ, who is the Eternal Word of God, that doth not proceed from Silence, and that is in all things like unto him that sent him. The main design of S. Ignatius in this place, is to Establish our Saviour's Divinity against the Ebionites. He shews that he is God, be∣cause he is the Word or the Speech of God, which being Eternal, is not preceded by Silence as that of Men. This Explication is natural and liable to no difficulty, though M. Daillé hath thought fit to censure it as Impertinent; however there is none that reads this Passage but will readily grant, that this Sense is most proper and very conformable to the Intention of the ancient Writers, who endea∣voured to demonstrate the Difference that there is between the Word of God and that of Men. S. Augustin, in his Homily concerning the Nativity of Jesus Christ, makes use of the very same Com∣parison, without having any regard to the Valentinians; Quod est (says he) hoc Verbum? Quod dictu∣rus antea non silebat, quo dicto, non siluit qui dicebat: And S. Fulgentius, Lib. 3. ad Trasim. cap. 28. Idem Verbum nullo potuit coerceri silentio, quia ipse Patris est sempiterna locutio. That which is affirmed by M. Daillé, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was used by the Valentinians, may be true, but they oftener used the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, neither is the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 peculiar to the Valentinians, it is commonly ap∣plied in Greek to signifie To go or come forth. Besides S. Ignatius says not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which may signifie, that the Word of God came not forth after Silence as that of Men.

2. Valentinus and his Disciples did not affirm, that the Word came from Silence. The Word ac∣cording to their fantastical Imagination, came from the Spirit and the Truth, and not from the Deep and from Silence.

3. The Opinion of Valentinus concerning Silence, was devised and propagated before his time, for all that speak of his Heresie observe, that he revived the ancient Errors of the Gnosticks. Eusebius declares in Lib. 2. de Theolog. Eccles. cap. 9. that Simon Magus often talked of Silence among his Followers: Secundum impiu•• (says he) Haereticorum principem, qui, impia dogmatizans, pronunciavit dicens, erat Deus, & Sige; which comes nearer to the Error, that is supposed to be confuted by S. Ignatius. S. Irenaeus attributes this Opinion to all the Gnosticks, as also Tertullian, S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustin. S. Gre∣gory Nazianzen, Orat. 23. and after him Ellas Cretensis, charge it upon the Gnosticks. This shews, that tho' the Author of the Epistle to the Magnesians should have opposed the Error of those that maintain that the Word proceeded from Silence, yet this doth not hinder but that it might have been written by S. Ignatius.

4. It is not certainly known, whether Valentinus had not already began to divulge his Errors even before the Death of S. Ignatius, since it is evident that S. Polycarp survived this Arch-Heretick, and tho' he was not declared to be the Ring-leader of this Party till afterwards, yet he might even then have taught some of his pernicious Doctrines, to which S. Ignatius might allude. These four Answers are solid, and every one of them separately might be sufficient to convince any Man; but the first in my opinion is most natural.

Object. 6. In the Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna, mention is made of certain visible Princes that shall be judged, if they do not believe in Jesus Christ. Now what probability is there, (say they) that S. Ignatius should speak this of the Emperors and Kings of his time?

Ans. Why may not this be affirmed of the Unbelieving Emperors and Kings that were Con-temporary with S. Ignatius? Since Tertullian and S. Justin have declared as much of the Emperors of their time, and that too in the presence of the Emperors themselves. Moreover it is not necessa∣ry to understand the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 only of Emperors and Kings, since it may signifie all that arein∣vested with any Authority.

Object. 7. In the Epistle to the Romans we find this Expression, That he was led by the Leopards, which are Soldiers. This Explication (say they) is needless, and the Comparison is childish.

Ans. And I say that the Similitude is very natural, and that the Explication was necessary. Bochart indeed affirms, that the word Leopard was not used untill the time of Constantine; but how does he know it? It is in the Acts of the Passion of S. Perpetua and S. Felicitas; Aelius Sparti∣anus, in the Life of Geta, thinks, that it was an old Word at the time when he wrote his Hi∣story.

Object. 8. In the Epistle to the Philadelphians, he speaks of Penitents that were publickly received by the Church, whereas (say they) in the first Ages, they that had once fallen were not afterward

readmitted into the Communion of the Church; neither was there any Penance that ended in Reconciliation.

Ans. There is nothing in the Epistle to the Philadelphians concerning publick Penitence who had committed enormous Crimes; this is a mere Imagination. It is only declared, that they that had de∣parted form the Church should obtain Pardon for their Fault, if they repented thereof by re-entering into it, that is to say, if they re-united themselves to the Church, from which they were separated. It is certain, that Hereticks and Schismaticks returning to the Church were always readmitted. Beside, the Example of the young Man who was reconciled by S. John, after he had been for a long time Captain of a Troop of Highway-men, and of many others, shew, that Penance was then in use; and Morinus evidently proves, that in the two first Centuries Absolution was granted more easily than in the third.

Object. 9. Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus, who died before S. Ignatius, is cited by Name in this Epistle.

Ans. This Onesimus is not he that was the Disciple of S. Paul, whom others affirm to have been Bishop of Beraea: And besides even the Onesimus, mentioned by S. Paul, might be living when S. Ignatius wrote this Epistle, since that of S. Paul to Philemon was written from Rome about the year of our Lord 64, therefore tho' Onesimus might be 26 years old then, yet he could not have been a∣bove 70 years of Age about the year 107, or 108, when S. Ignatius Composed these Works, which is no very extraordinary thing.

Object. 10. The Author of the Epistles attributed to S. Ignatius cites (as they say) several Apo∣cryphal Books. He produceth in the Epistle to the Smyrneans a Sentence concerning Jesus Christ, taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Who can believe this of S. Ignatius?

Ans. This is no unusal thing among the Ancients. S. Jerom gives us the same passage of S. Ig∣natius, and Papias hath likewise quoted the Gospel according to the Hebrews. S. Clement, in his E∣pistle to the Corinthians, uses some Expressions as taken from the Holy Scriptures which are not there, as is observed by Photius, Cod. 126. S. Jude also cites the Book of Enoch. And besides, we cannot positively affirm, that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is cited by S. Ignatius, for he only pro∣duceth a Sentence, as knowing by Tradition that it was uttered by Jesus Christ. Thus S. Clement and S. Barnabas set down the Words of our Saviour, which they had either heard spoken by him, or had received from those by whom he was seen in the Flesh. Lastly, this Passage in S. Ignatius is quoted by S. Jerom, as belonging to the Gospel according to the Hebrews; but Origen produces it out of the Book, entituled, The Doctrine of S. Peter, which shews that it was a very common Expression.

Object. 11. The ardent desire of suffering Martyrdom, expressed by S. Ignatius, is (according to their Judgment) too excessive.

Ans. This hath been admired in the Epistle to the Romans, by the ancient Christians; the same Ardor appears likewise in S. Cyprian, in Germanicus a Martyr of Smyrna, and in many others. Cer∣tainly they must needs have but a very little knowledge of Antiquity, who deny that the Primi∣tive Christians were inflamed with a fervent desire of suffering Martyrdom, and a Man shews that he is but meanly skilled in Divinity, if he blames this Passion, when it neither does, nor says any thing that is impudent or indecent. And this is the case of S. Ignatius, who, in testifying an earnest desire of becoming a Martyr, uttered no Expressions but such as were very prudent, and very moderate: Let us read his Epistle to the Romans with the same Spirit as he wrote it, and we shall be so far from censuring it with the modern Criticks, that we shall admire it as much as the Ancients did.

Object. 12. S. Paul doth not mention the Ephesians in all his Epistles, as it is affirmed by the Author of the Epistle to the Ephesians: Therefore, &c.

Ans. He doth not say that S. Paul mentioned the Ephesians in all his Epistles, but throughout the whole Epistle that he wrote to them, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and composed altogether for their use.

Object. 13. He declares that he saw Jesus Christ, which, S. Chrysostom says, is not true.

Ans. The passage which is meant by them signifies only, that he knew and believed the real Incarnation of Jesus Christ. And after all, it was not impossible for S. Ignatius to have seen our Saviour.

Object. 14. He gives an account of the Errors of certain Hereticks that abstained from the Eu∣charist; now there were not any such (says M. Daillé) in the time of S. Ignatius, but afterwards when these Epistles were counterfeited.

Ans. Who hath informed him, that there were no such at the time when these Epistles were forged, and none before? These Hereticks are the Docetae, who believed that Jesus Christ suffered only in appearance, whose Heresie was very ancient.

Object. 15. He affirms, that the Romans might easily have delivered him from his Persecutor, why then did they not do it?

Ans. He doth not declare that they were absolutely able to deliver him, but only that he was ready to undergo Martydom, if they did not prevent it; that they might easily do whatever they thought fit, that is, use their endeavours to rescue him from Death; but for his part, he could not find a better opportunity of suffering for Jesus Christ.

Object. 16. He promiseth to send a Book to the Ephesians; but how could he do it when he was going to be put to Death?

Ans. His meaning is, That he would write a second Letter to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a second

small Vol•…•…, upon two Cond•…•… First, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God should 〈◊〉〈◊〉; a••d Secondly, in case the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should want it. He •…•…ght well hope to write another▪ having had the liberty to write the former.

〈…〉〈…〉 they) too much A••••ogance and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in these Epistles; the 〈…〉〈…〉 the knowledge of Celesti•••• things, Se multa sapere in Deo, and that he knew the 〈…〉〈…〉 and Stations of the Angel••.

Ans. All this might be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by an ancient Bishop, that had acquired the Reputation of S. Ig▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉; all the Chris•…•… might likewise boast that they were endued with the knowledge of Ce∣le•…•…al Things, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 especially Bishops. S. Ig••••tius immediately adds after the Words cited in the Objection, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 knowledge I have, I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ot p••••••ed up, but I measure my self. He says nothing of Angels, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had been said before by S. Paul.

Object. 18. What reason is there, that S. Ignatius should be sent to Rome to be exposed to wild Beasts in the Amphitheatre of that City, as if Persons condemned to this sort of Punishment, were not executed in all the great Towns, where Shews were exhibited? Why must he be brought thither by ••ea and Land, a way so far about?

Ans. If we may believe the History of the Martyrdom of S. Ignatius, he was sent to Rome by the express Command of the Emperor. However, if this were not true, it is ordained by the Law, 〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Crimin•…•…, condemned to be to•••• in pieces by wild Beasts, should be conveyed to Rome 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Emperor's Permission; (which ought to be understood of consider∣able Malefactors;) such were the Ring-leaders of Factions, and the Bishops among the Christians▪ e∣specially so famous a Bishop as that of Antioch. The way through which he was conducted thither was the ordinary Road; for to come to Rome out of Syria, it is necessary to go to Smyrna or to Ephesius, a•…•…eward to cross the Hellesp••nt, and so to Br••nd••sium, and from thence to Rome.

Object 19. The last Objection which is the cause why all the others were made, is taken from the different Orders of Bishops and Priests, who are often distinguished in the Epistles that are attributed to S. Ignatius▪ It is supposed that this distinction was not made untill the third Age of the Church, from whence it is concluded that these Epistles are none of his.

Ans▪ This Supposition being false, the whole Objection must consequently fall of it self, and tho▪ we had no other Proo••s of the distincton of Bishops and Priests in the second Century, than the Epistles of S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ye•• we ought not to doubt thereof, and instead of inferring from thence that these Letters are Counter••elt, it may well be concluded on the contrary, that the different Or∣ders of Bi••hops and Priests, were established in S. Ignatius's time, since they are found in the E∣p•…•…es that have been acknowledged by all the antient Writers as certainly belonging to him: But there are many other Testimonies which make it appear, that there was a distinction between Bishops and Priests even in the second Age of the Church. Hegesippus, for Example, gives us a Catalogue of the Bishops of Jerusalem; can this be said to be a List of the Priests of that City? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath made another of the ancient Bishops of Asia, and Eusebius hath compiled that of the principal Cities throughout the whole World since the time of Jesus Christ▪ Therefore there must of necessity have been always in the Church, Persons called Bishops, who presided over Churches and Priests. The Martrys of Ly••ns style Pothinus Bishop, and S. Irenaeus Priest. The anonymous Author, cited by Eusebius against the Cataphrygians, distinguishes Priests from Bishops. And there are infinite numbers of Testimonies and Arguments, by which it may be proved that there was some difference made between Priests and Bishops even in the second Century; but we shall insist no longer on this Subject: And I am afraid that I have already tired the Reader's patience in refu∣••ing all the Objections that have been alledged against the Epistles of S. Ignatius, but I judged it necessary for the confirmation of their Authority.

It remains only, for the conclusion of our Critical Enquiries concerning these Epistles, to give some account of that to S. Polycarp. I know not what reason Usher might have to reject it, since it plainly belongs to the number of the Seven that are mentioned by Eusebius, who clearly distinguisheth it from that which was written to the Inhabitants of Smyrna. S. Jerom follows Eusebius in this particu∣lar. Et propri•• (says he) ad Polycarpum. It is true indeed, that here he cites a Passage of the Epistle to the Smyrneans as appertaining to that of S. Polycarp, but this may only be an Error as to matter of Fact, and it very frequently happens, that in Citations one Work is taken for another. A notable mark of the Truth of this Epistle is that in the Manuscript of Florence, it is found to be different from the Vulgar Edition, as well as the six others that are esteemed Authentick, whereas all the rest which are forged do not vary in this Manuscript from the ordinary Editions; this shews, that the Author of these Letters, is the same Person that made the Additions in the real Epistles of S. Ig∣natius, and that all those that are purged from these Additions in the above-cited Manuscript of Florence, and in the Edition of Vossius, are undoubtedly genuine.

The Cronological Order of these seven Epistles is this: First, it is certain that they were all writ∣ten by S. Ignatius when he was in Bonds, and as he was conveyed from Antioch to Rome to be ex∣posed to wild Beasts in that City. Secondly it is likewise evident, that four of them were made at Smyrna, where he re••••ded, perhaps, for some considerable time; these four in the Edition of Vossius and in S. Jerom are put in this following Order; the Epistle to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Trallians, and the last to the Romans. It cannot be precisely determined, whether this be the Order wherein they were written, or whether they were all composed at the same time. It is probable that the Epistle to the Romans is the last, because he declares therein, that he wrote to the other Churches, and that he went chearfully to suffer Martyrdom: It seems to have been made when he was ready to depart, being wearied with the long stay of his Guards in that place; so great was his Passion to suffer Martyrdom.

He wrote the three others at his departure from Smyrna whilst he stayed at 〈◊〉〈◊〉, from whence he was obliged to go to Naples. The Epistles to the Smyrneans and to S. Polycarp seem to have been written together, and that to the Philadelphians last, because it is expressed in the later, that the other Cities had sent several Bishops and Priests into Syria; and in the Epistle to S. Polycarp, he chargeth him to depute a fit Person for the Episcopal Function in that Country. However there is a more probable conjecture to prove, that the two others were written after that to the Philadelphians, according to S. Jerom's Opinion, because S. Ignatius declares therein, that he was ready to embark for N••ples, and that this was the reason why he could not write to the other Churches, which shews, that the time of his departure drew near when he Composed them. He there mentions his Martyr∣dom, as a thing certainly to be accomplish'd. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna, confutes the Error of those that denied that Jesus Christ took upon himself the human Nature; that he assumed a real Body, and that he actually suffered: He affirms, that those Hereticks neglected the Poor and the Widows, and separated themselves from the publick Prayers of the Church, and from the Eucharist, because they did not believe that it was the Body of Jesus Christ, which had been nailed to the Cross for our sakes, and afterwards rose again from the Dead: He admonisheth the Smyrneans to avoid Divisions as the Original of all Evil, to obey their Bishop, to honour the Priests and Deacons, and to do nothing contrary to the Precepts of their Bishop, without whose Assistance (saith he) it is not lawfull even to Baptize, or to celebrate the Agapae or Love-feasts.

In the Epistle to S. Polycarp, he gives excellent Counsels to this Bishop; he advises him to endea∣vour to preserve Union in his Church, to watch continually over his Flock, and to apply convenient Remedies to their Distempers, to reprove those that offend, with Charity and Gentleness, to pray to God incessantly and to sue for his Grace. In short, to labour without Intermission as a faithfull Servant and Soldier of Jesus Christ, who being invisible and impassible, made himself visible and mor∣tal for our sakes. He admonisheth him to take care of the Widows, not to despise the meanest People, not to suffer any thing to be done without his Concurrence, and to do nothing himself but what is con∣formable to the Will of God, to enjoyn Women to please their Husbands, and Husbands to love their Wives, as also to recommend to them Chastity, accompanied with Humility, and to inform the Chri∣stians, that their Marriage when performed, according to the Will of God, ought to be solemnized in the Presence of the Bishop. Afterward he exhorts all the faithfull, to submit to their Bishop, Priests and Deacons, and to work out their own Salvation. Lastly, directing his Discourse to S. Polycarp, he advi∣seth him to call a Synod, and to ordain a Bishop to be sent into Syria.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, he testifies his Joy in seeing Onesimus their Bishop, who came to him with a Deacon named Burrus, and two other Believers; he admonisheth them to live Holily, in perfect Unity among themselves, and in Obedience to their Bishop and Priests; he declares, that they that do not joyn with the Bishop and are not present at the publick Service of the Christians, over which the Bishops preside, are without the pale of the Church, and deprived of the Celestial Food. Afterward he warns them to beware of Heresies, to avoid the Company of Hereticks, and to believe that Jesus Christ is God, who was incarnate, that he is impassible as he is God, and passible as he is Man. Lastly, after having commended their Piety, he exhorts them to pray to God, for all sorts and conditi∣ons of Men, frequently to assemble together, to make publick Prayers and Supplications, and inviolably to preserve Faith and Charity; he affirms that the Prince of this World, that is to say, the Devil, was ig∣norant of the Virginity of Mary, of her Child-birth, and of the Death of our Lord: He promiseth to send to them a little Book, that is to say, a Letter concerning the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and he intreats them to pray to God for him.

In the Epistle to the Magnesians, he exhorts the Christians of that Church to be obedient to their Bishop Damas, who came to see him, to do nothing without him, and to live in Unity one with ano∣ther. He admonisheth them not to suffer themselves to be led away with vain Opinions, not to live like Jews but as Christians, to believe in Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God that doth not proceed from Silence, but was sent by God the Father, and is our only hope. At last he desires them to remem∣ber him in their Prayers.

In the Epistle to the Philadelphians, he Congratulates their Union, he exhorts them to avoid cor∣rupt Doctrines, and advises them not to follow those that are the Abetters of Schisms ond Divisions a∣mongst them, and to concur in every thing with their Bishop. Lastly, he refutes the Arguments of those that refused to believe any thing, but what was written in the Old Testament, and declares that the Gospel is the perfection of that which was prefigured in the old Law.

In the Epistle to the Trallians, he commends their Union, and the Submission and Respect that they shewed towards their Bishop, Priests and Deacons, and exhorts them to persevere in this Union, and to beware of Hereticks. He expounds the Orthodox Doctrines of the Catholick Church, that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, that he was really Man, that he actually suffered and died, and not in appearance, as some Hereticks said.

Lastly, in the Epistle to the Romans, he expresseth his Zeal, and ardent desire of suffering Martyrdom, and entreats them not to take this glorious Crown from him, by preventing his being exposed to wild Beasts in the Amphitheatre of Rome.

Upon the whole matter, all these Epistles are ••ull of very wholsom Precepts, and usefull Exhortations; they are extremely worthy of a Christian, of a Bishop, and of a Martyr▪ and are all full of Warmth and Piety. One cannot read them, without perceiving every where, that this Holy man was anima∣ted with a Zeal truly Divine for the Salvation of Souls, for the fulfilling of the Law of Jesus Christ, and for the preservation of his Doctrine. In every thing that he says, he appears to be full of Love to

our Saviour, of affection towards his Brethren, of Care for the Discipline of the Church, and of Ardour for the blessing of Peace. In short, let Criticks that are of a contrary Opinion say what they please, I dare maintain that these Epistles deserve to be well esteemed, and to be admired by all those who profess to have any Respect for Books of Piety.

S. POLYCARP.

ST. Polycarp a 1.127 the Disciple of S. John the Evangelist b 1.128, and by him ordained Bishop of Smyr∣na, was after the decease of this Apostle, esteemed as the Head of the Churches of Asia; c 1.129 when * 1.130 he went to Rome, under the Pontificate of Anicetus about the Year 160 d 1.131 he converted several Marcionites, and obliged them to return to the Bosom of the Church. He had several Conse∣reno••s with Pope Anicetus, probably about several particular Customs of the Church of Rome; They debated the question of the day when they should keep Easter, which was afterwards disputed under the Pontificate of Pope Victor, but each of them having judged it to be most convenient to observe his own custom, they a•…•…cably communicated one with another; and Anicetus to do the greater honour to S. Polycarp caused him to officiate in his own Church e 1.132, and in his own place.

This Holy Bishop always abhorred Hereticks; and he used to tell a Story, That S. John having seen Cerinthus entring into a Bath, speedily fled from thence without bathing himself therein, fearing lest the building should fall because Cerinthus the Enemy of the Truth was there; and he himself having once accidentally met with M••rcion, who desired that he would vouchsafe to take notice of him, he re∣plied, I know that thou art the ••ldest Son of the Devil. He had a very particular respect for the Memory of S. John; he took much delight in telling over the Discourses that he formerly had with him, and with others that had seen Jesus Christ in the flesh; he related every thing whereof he had been informed by them concerning his Doctrine and Miracles, and if he had heard any one maintaining any Principles contrary to the Apostolical Faith, he was wont to cry out, O God to what times hast thou reserved me! and would immediately depart from the place where he was. All this is recorded by S. Irenaeus, and cited by Eusebius in the 14th Chapter of the fourth Book of his History, and in Book 5. Chap. 20.

The illustrious Martyrdom of this Saint, which happened in the year 167. after the Nativity of Jesus Christ on the 23d day of February, is described after a most elegant manner in the Excel∣lent Epistle of the Church of Smyrna to those of Pontus, produced in part by Eusebius, in the Fifteenth Chapter of the fourth Book of his History, and published entirely first by Archbishop Ush••r, and afterward by Valesius. They there give an account that S. Polycarp did not volun∣tarily surrender himself to his Executioners, but that he waited after the example of our Saviour, untill he was deliverd into their hands; that many Christians suffered before him with admirable constancy, all the Torments imaginable; that there was only one Quintus, who had persuaded the others to present themselves before the Tribunal of the Judge, that was overcome in the great Tryal, which shews (as it is observed in the same Epistle) that although we cannot but admire the constan∣cy of those that have generously suffered, after they had presented themselves, yet their Conduct ought not to

be approved, since it is condemned in the Gospel. That S. Polycarp being informed of what had happen∣ed, determined to remain in the City; but being constrained to retire into a little House in the Country, he there continually prayed to God night and day for all the Churches, and for all Men; that three days before he was apprehended, being fervent in Prayer, he saw a Vision, wherein he perceived that his Bedstead was all on fire, which caused him immediately to foretell that he should ere long be burnt alive; that although he was removed from the place of his abode, yet he was seized by the Soldiers of the Provost-Marshal, led into the City and brought before the Pro-Consul, who endeavoured to per∣suade him to swear by the Genius of Caesar, and to curse Jesus Christ, whereupon Polycarp being en∣couraged by a Voice from Heaven, openly declares that he was a Christian; That the Pro-Consul ha∣ving caused his profession to be proclaimed with a loud Voice, all the People who were in the Amphi∣theatre, cryed out, that he should be burnt alive: That being tied to a Stake, he prayed to God, and concluded with Blessing the most Holy Trinity; that when the Fire was kindled it made a kind of a Circle round about the Body of this holy Martyr, who remained in the midst thereof without recei∣ving the least hurt; And lastly, that the Pagans perceiving that the Fire could not burn or consume him, sent an Officer to run him through with a Sword; and would not suffer the Christians to car∣ry off his Body, which continued whole and intire, lest (as these deluded Heathens affirm'd) they should adore it in stead of Jesus * 1.133 Christ. Fools, as they were, (these are the words of the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna) they did not know that the Christians worship none but Jesus Christ because he is the Son of God, and only honour the Martyrs who are his Disciples and Followers, because of the Love which they testifie to have for their King and Master. The Centurian having caused the Body of this Martyr to be burnt, the Christians car∣ried away his Bones being more valuable than the most precious Stones, and more pure than Gold, which they buried in a place where they as∣sembled together, to celebrate with joy and chearfulness the day of his Martyrdom, thus honouring the memory of those that have fought glo∣riously for the defence of their Religion, and to confirm and instruct others by such Examples. These were the Notions of the Primitive Church concerning the Respect due to Martyrs and their Relicks, explained after a clear and exact manner, which are as far remo∣ved from the aspersions that are cast on them by the Protestants of our time, as from the superstition of some Roman Catholicks.

S. Irenaeus assures us in his Letter to Florinus, that S. Polycarp wrote several Epistles to the Neighbouring Churches to confirm them in the Christian Faith, and others to some of his Brethren to encourage and exhort them to persevere in the Truth. We have at present but one single Epistle written by him to the Philippians, and particularly cited by S. Irenaeus, Eusebius, S. Jerom and Photius, f 1.134 who have all commended and approved it as really belonging to this Primitive Bishop. And it cannot be doubted that it is the same with that which was ex∣tant in the time of these ancient Writers; wherefore I shall make no difficulty to affirm, that it would be great rashness to reject it, as M. Blondel and M. Daillé have done; for by whom have these modern Authors been informed that this Letter was not composed by S. Polycarp? What reasons can they al∣ledge? Do they know S. Polycarps's style better than S. Irenaeus his Disciple? Have they a greater in∣sight into this matter than Eusebius, S. Jerom, or Photius? Besides, if the Arguments produced by them had any weight, one might set them in the balance with the authority of these ancient Writers, but they are so weak that they scarcely deserve to be mentioned. This Epistle (says M. Daillé) is disallow∣ed by Nicephorus in his Stichometria: This is indeed an authority of great moment fit to be set against the testimony of Eusebius, S. Jerom and Photius! It is not certainly known by whom this Stichometria was composed, and although we should allow that it was written by Nicephorus, yet he is a late Author, and of very little authority in comparison of those that we have now cited. After all, he doth not reject the Epistle of S. Polycarp, but only a certain Work that was attributed to him, and the Book of the Doctrine of S. Polycarp (as we have elsewhere observed) ought to be thereby understood, after the same manner as the Book of the Doctrine of S. Ignatius, and the Book of the Doctrine of S. Clement. Otherwise we must likewise disallow the Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, whose name is found among the Apocryphal Writings immediately before that of S. Polycarp. It is certain also, that there was extant a Book, entituled, The Doctrine of S. Polycarp, as well as one called, The Doctrine of S. Clement, since it is cited by Maximus, Bede, Ado, Usuardus, Metaphrastes, Pachy•…•…eres, Honorius, and Nicephorus Calistus.

M. Daillé perceiving th•• weakness of his objection against the Epistle of S. Polycarp, is obliged to assert, that tho the first part is genuine, yet the second wherein he mentions those of S. Ignatius, i•• supposititious▪ And to prove this he shews, that the Epistle was concluded with the Invocation of Jesus Christ, and that which follows ought to be esteemed as an addition made afterwards, being of no authority. But M. Daillé cannot maintain this Hypothesis without rejecting the Testimony of Eu∣sebius and Photius, who cite this second part, and more especially that which relates to the Letters of S. Ignatius; neither doth it signifie any thing to urge that the Epistle was concluded before, because, it is evident, that the Invocation of Jesus Christ is frequently inserted in the middle of an Epistle, which is nevertheless continued after this sort of conclusion; this is very often to be found in S. Paul's Epistles, particularly in the Fifteenth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The only objection alledg∣ed by M. Daillé that hath any manner of probability is this; It is manifest (says he) that the Author who wrote that part wherein S. Ignatius is mentioned, supposeth him to be yet living, since he re∣quires the Philippians to inform him concerning the transactions of S. Ignatius, and of those that were with him; De ipso Ignatio & de iis qui cum eo sunt g 1.135 quod certius agnoveritis significate. But if we observe these words, it will appear, that they might as well be written after the death of S. Ignatius, as when he was alive, and that S. Polycarp only desired an account of the particular Circumstances of the Life and Martyrdom of that eminent Bishop, which were not unknown to the Christians of Philippi, through which City he had passed in his Journey to Rome.

This Epistle being full of admirable Counsels, Precepts, and Exhortations taken from the Holy Scriptures is written with a great deal of elegancy and simplicity, as Photius has observed already. It was Printed in Latin together with the Epistles of S. Clement and S. Ignatius in the years 1498, 1502, 1520, 1536, and 1550, at Basil in 1579, at Colen in 1530, at Paris in 1569 with the Works of S. Ire∣neus, at Ingolstadt in 1546, at Paris in 1562, and at several other times, it is likewise inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum set forth by La Bigne. Besides it was Printed at Colen in 1557 of the Translation of Perionius, with the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in 1585, with them and the Epistles of S. Ignatius. Halloixius first published part thereof in Greek from a Manuscript which Sirmondus had transcribed from a Copy written by Turrianus. Usher hath Printed it in Greek and Latin after∣wards with the Epistles of S. Ignatius in the year 1644. Cotelerius put it into his Collection of the ancient Records of the Fathers. Moderus hath likewise procured it to be reprinted at Helmstadt, and lastly it was Printed in Holland in 1687, with a Dissertation concerning the Life and Writings of S. Polycarp, in a Collection of Treatises, entituled, Varia Sacra, set forth by M. Le Moine.

There are several other Works attributed to this ancient Bishop, as an Epistle to S. Dionysius the Areopagite, quoted by Suides, and a Treatise concerning the Union of S. John, which is pretended to be kept in the Abby of Fleury; some Passages or Notes on the Gospels are likewise produced for his, which are taken from the Catena of Feuardentius under the name of Victor Capuensis. But it is very probable that these Tracts are fictitious. S. Jerome in his 28th Epistle to Baeticus declares, that it was commonly reported in his time, that the Authentick Works of Josephus, Polycarp, and Papias, were brought to him, but that it was a false rumour.

PAPIAS.

PApias, Bishop of Hierapolis a 1.136, a City of Asia, was a Disciple either of S. John the Evange∣list b 1.137, or of some other Person who bore the same name: He wrote five Books, entituled, The Explications of our Lords Discourses, which were extant even in the time of Trithemius; * 1.138 but at present we have only some few fragments in the Writings of the ancient and modern

Authors. He was the first that promoted the famous Opinion, or rather Dotage of Antiquity c 1.139, concerning the Temporal Beign of Jesus Christ, which they fansied should happen on Earth a thou∣sand years before the day of Judgment, when the Elect should be gathered together after the Resur∣rection in the City of Jerusalem, and should enjoy there all the Delights imaginable during these thousand years.

S. Irenaeus produceth a fragment taken from the fourth Book of Papias, wherein he endeavours to prove this Opinion by a passage of the Prophet Isaiah: And Eusebius having cited a Paragraph of his Preface to these Books, in which he shews the great care that he took to be informed of the Do∣ctrine of the Apostles, by interrogating their Disciples, adds; That this Author hath set down many things, which he pretended to have learnt by an unwritten Tradition, of which sort there are several new Parables and Instructions of our Saviour Jesus Christ, that are not contained in the Gospels, together with other fabulous▪ Histories, among which we may reckon the Reign of Jesus Christ on Earth during the space of a thousand years after the Resurrection of the Body; That which led him into this Error (continu∣eth Eusebius) is that he understood the Discourses and Instructions of the Apostles too literally, not un∣derstanding that a mystical sense ought to be given to this sort of Expressions, and that the Apostles only made use of them as Illustrations; for ••e was a Man of a very mean capacity, as appears from his Books, who nevertheless gave occasion to many of the ancient Fathers, and among others to Irenaeus, to follow this Error, which they maintained by the authority of Papias. Eusebius in the same place relates two Mira∣cles, the account whereof Papias declares that he had received from the Daughter of Philip the Dea∣con, who resided at Hierapolis; That a dead Man was raised at that time, and that Barsabas, sirnamed Justus, Elected to be an Apostle, together with S. Matthias, having swallowed deadly Poison, was not hurt by it! Moreover he assures us, that Papias had collected in his Books divers Explications on some words of Jesus Christ composed by Aristion a Disciple of the Apostles, and the Traditions like∣wise of the venerable Elder S. John; but omitting these things, he is content only to recite a passage wherein this ancient Writer affirms, that S. Mark compiled his Gospel from what he had heard S. Peter tell of the Actions and Discourses of Jesus Christ, and this is the reason that he hath not observed an Historical Method; That S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and that it was afterward Tran∣slated into Greek. Lastly, Eusebius affirms, that he cited the first Epistles of S. Peter and of S. John, and that he explained the History of a Woman that was accused before our Saviour of several Crimes, which was found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Thus we have given an account of all that is recorded by Eusebius concerning Papias. Andreas Caesariensis and Oeoumenius have likewise pro∣duced some Passages d 1.140 of his Works in their Commentaries on the Holy Scripture, but it is not certain whether they were Papias's or no.

The Judgment that ought to be given concerning him, is that which hath been already given by Eusebius, that is to say, that he was a good Man, but very credulous, and of very mean Barts, who delighted much in hearing and telling Stories and Miracles. And since he was exceedingly in∣quisitive, and inclined to believe every thing that was told him, it is not to be admired that he hath divulged divers Errors and extravagant Notions as the Judgments of the Apostles, and hath gi∣ven us fabulous Narratives for real Histories, which shews, that nothing is so dangerous in Matters of Religion, as lightly to believe, and too greedily to embrace, all that hath the appearance of Piety, without considering in the first place how true it is e 1.141.

QUADRATUS and ARISTIDES.

THese two Defenders of the Faith presented Apologies for Christians to the Emperor Adrian: The first was a Disciple of the Apostles a 1.142, and it is said, that he had the Gift of Pro∣phecy * 1.143 b 1.144. Eusebius assures us, that the Apology of this Author was extant in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and that it shewed the Genius of this Man, and the true Doctrine of the Apostles. But we have only a small Fragment produced by Eusebius in the fourth Book of his History, chap. 3. wherein the Author declares, that none could doubt of the Truth of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, because the Persons that were healed or raised from the Dead by him, had been seen, not only when he wrote his Miracles, or whilst he was upon Earth, but even a very great while after his Death: So that there are many (says he) who were yet living in our time c 1.145.

We have also lost the Apology of Aristides which was preserved till S. Jerom's time. This Aristides was a very Eloquent Athenian Philosopher, (says the same S. Jerom) who when he changed his Religion, did not alter his Profession, and presented unto the Emperor Adrian, at the same time as Qua∣dratus, a Volume in form of an Apology, wherein he produced the Proofs of our Religion, and being still ex∣tant, shews the Learned how excellent a Writer this Author was. The same S. Jerom observes in ano∣ther place, that this Work was full of Philosophical Notions, and that is was afterward imitated by S. Justin.

AGRIPPA.

AT the same time, and under the Reign of the same Emperor, lived Agrippa Sirnamed Castor, a Learned Man, who wrote a very convincing Book against the Heresie of Basilides, in which he confuted the Errors of this Heretick, after he had discovered them, and detected * 1.146 all his Devices and Frauds. He observes, (says Eusebius) that Basilides, had written twen∣ty four Books on the Gospels, and that he forged several Prophets that never were in the World, to whom he attributed extraordinary Names, such as Barsabas and Barcoph, on purpose to amuse the Minds of his Auditors. He affirmed also, that this Heretick taught his Followers, that it was a thing indifferent to eat Sacrifices that were offered unto Idols; that it was lawfull to Renounce the Faith in the time of Persecution; and that, in imitation of Pythagoras, he imposed Silence on his Disciples for the space of five years. We have no further knowledge of this Author, since his Book is lost, and I know not whether we have any considerable Fragment of it left.

HEGESIPPUS.

HEgesippus appeared in the World a little after the Death of the Apostles, about the beginning of the Second Age of the Church a 1.147. He left the Jewish Religion, in which he was born b 1.148, to Embrace that of the Christians; he took a Journey to Rome under the Pontificate of Pope Anicetus, * 1.149

and remained there until that of Eleutherus c 1.150, that is to say, from the year 165, until the year 180, or thereabouts; he is the first Author that hath Composed an entire Body of Ecclesiasti∣cal History, which he divided into five Books d 1.151, wherein he relates the principal Occurrences which happened in the Church from Jesus Christ's Passion to his own time. This Book was writ∣ten in a simple Style e 1.152, because he resolved (says S. Jerom) to imitate the Phrases and Dialect of those, whose Lives he wrote. We have only some few Fragments left, which are inserted by Eu∣sebius in his Ecclesiastical History.

The first Fragment extracted from the Writings of Hegesippus, and produced by Eusebius in the second Book of his History, Chap. 23. contains a Relation of the Martyrdom of S. James Bishop of Jerusalem, but his way of telling it looks more like a fabulous Narrative, than a true Hi∣story f 1.153.

The second Fragment of Hegesippus is likewise to be found in the History of Eusebius, Book 3. Chap. 20. He therein informs us, that the Emperor Domitian caused a strict Search to be made after the Posterity of David, who were the Children of S. Jude the Brother of our Lord, but that perceiving them to be extremely poor, and very far from being able to make any attempt a∣gainst the Empire, he soon dismissed them without any molestation g 1.154.

The third is also found in the same Book, ch. 32. where he gives an account of the Martyrdom of Simeon the Son Cleopas Bishop of Jerusalem, who was Crucified under the Reign of Trajan, and adds, that hitherto the Church had remained a Virgin h 1.155, but that after the Death of those that had heard and seen Jesus Christ in the Flesh, the first Heresiarch's began openly to divulge their detestable Errors.

The fourth Fragment concerning Antinous, whom Adrian caused to be Registred amongst the Gods, is cited, Book 4. Chap. 8. only to shew, that Hegesippus lived after the time of that Emperor.

The fifth is in Book 4. Chap. 22. where Hegesippus speaks of his Journey to Rome in passing through Corinth, where he saw Primus the Bishop of that City; he describes the Election of Simeon in the room of S. James, and makes mention of a certain Person named Thebutis, whom he affirms to have been the first that rent the Church by his Errors, being incensed because he was not made a Bishop; he observes, that this Thebutis had collected his Doctrines from the seven Sects that were among the Jews, as well as the other Hereticks.

Eusebius adds, that Hegesippus produced divers Passages out of the Hebrew and Syriack Gospels, and that he speaks of several Traditions of the Jews; it is likewise observed by him, that he cites the Proverbs of Solomon, as well as S. Irenaeus, under the Name of The Book of Wisdom, and that he mentions certain Apocryphal Writings composed by the Hereticks of his tme. This is all that is extant of the five Books of the History of Hegesippus, the order of which is also unknown to us; but, as far as we can judge by the remaining Fragments of this Work, it was not very exact, and was rather filled with feigned and fabulous Relations, than with solid and real Histories.

We have besides, under the Name of Hegesippus an History of the Wars of the Jews, and of the taking of the City of Jerusalem, divided into five Books, which hath been often published, and particularly at Colen with the Notes of Galterius, in the year 1559. It was likewise printed in a Collection of the Works of the Fathers, set forth by Laurentius de la Barre, A. D. 1583. as also in the Bibliotheca Patrum of La Bigne, &c. But it is certain that this Work does not belong to Hegesip∣pus, it being evident that it was written by an Author who lived after the Reign of Constantine the Great. For first, The History of Hegesippus was merely Ecclesiastical, whereas this is an History of the Jews copied out in part from Josephus. Secondly, We do not find therein any of the Pas∣sages

of the true 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that are produced by 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Thirdly it is R••corded by thi Auth•••• in Book 3. Chap. 5. that th•• City of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, w••ich was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as the third in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Dig••••ity 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those of the Roman Empire became the second ever since the City of 〈…〉〈…〉 was called by the name of Constantinople. It is plain therefore, that the Author of this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…. Some with Gronovius attribute it to S. Ambrose, by reason of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of its 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••o that of the Writings of this Father; others, as Labb••••, are of opinion, that it is a Greek Version; and l••stly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as Vossius and Mir••••s, affirm, that this Book was Compiled since the time of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, th•••• is to say, after the tenth Century, because the Author discoursing concer••ing the City of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de∣clares, that it formerly belonged to the Persians, and that at present it was a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against th••••, which may be understood of the taking of this City by the Emperor Phocas. However i•• be, this Au∣thor is only a Transcriber, or an Interpreter of Josephus, who hath made a kind of an imperfect E∣pitome of his History. The Latin Interpreter, who hath Translated it from Joseph••s, gave i•• the Title of Josep•••• or Josippi, and the Transcribers not understanding this Word, have substituted Igis••pp•• or Egesip•••• in its room, as it appears from some ancient Manuscripts.

Father Mabillon observes in his Voyage into Italy, that he found in the Ambrosian Library at ••••••∣lan an ancient Manuscript of this Book, wherein it is said, that it was Translated by S. Ambrose, in th•• Titles whereof it is sometimes written Josippi; he saw another likewise at Tur••n that appeared to be about 700 years old, and that was entituled Egesippi. If these Manuscripts are as ancient as M••∣billon would have them to be▪ this Book must of necessity be of greater Antiquity than Vossius and Miraeus have imagined. It was Printed by it self at Paris in the years 1511, 1589, 1610; and afterwards inserted in the Bibliothecae Patrum.

S. JUSTIN.

ST. Justin was a Native of the City of Sichem, otherwise called Naples of Palestine a 1.156, which even at this day bears the Name of Napolous; his Father was called Priscus Bacchius; he was a Grecian by Birth and Religion b 1.157, but having in vain sought for the Knowledge of the true * 1.158 God among all the Sects of the Pagan Philosophers, (tho' ••••e chiefly adhered to the Platonick) was Converted to the Christian Faith in a private Conference that happened between him and a cer∣tain ancient Man unknown to him, as himself tells the Story in his Dialogue with Tryphon; however being turned Christian he did not lay aside his Habit nor his Profession, but added to his skill in the Heathen Philosophy, a profound Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. He was at Rome when the Persecution, that was raised under the Reign of Antoninus Pius the Successor of Adrian, began to break forth, where he Composed an excellent Apology in behalf of the Christians, and Dedicated it to the Emperor, and to the Caesars. his Sons c 1.159, about the year 150 after the Nativity of Jesus Christ d 1.160

This Apology is commonly called the second, but is really the first, whereas the other commonly so called is actually the second e 1.161, nay, (if we may give Credit to the Testimony of Eusebius) it was not Presented unto the Emperor and the Se••ate f 1.162 until the time of Marcus Antoninus the Phi∣losopher and Successor of Antoninus Pius. The Subject of these two Apologies is almost the same. S. Justin in the former, to shew the Injustice of their Proceedings in Punishing and Persecuting the Christians, and that they were Innocent of the Crimes laid to their Charge, gives an exact account to the Emperor and his Sons, of their Doctrine, Manners, and Ceremonies, which Qualifications ren∣der this Apology one of the most considerable Records of Antiquity, and one of those wherein many things are contained relating to our Religion. We there find the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation of our Saviour, and Eternal Life, as also the Proofs of the Christian Faith, the Holiness of the Conversation of its Professors, together with a Description of their Assembles, and the Ceremonies used by them in the Administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The second Apology, whereof some few Sentences are lost, doth not comprehend such variety of Matter, as being properly a Complaint or Remonstrance directed to the Emperor, the Senate, and all the People of Rome, concerning the Injuries that were unjustly offered to the Christians. In this last Apology he describes the Snares that were laid for him by a certain Cynick Philosopher named Crescens, whom he had convinced of Ignorance and Debauchery. I expect (says he) that those that falsly call themselves Philosophers, should lie in wait for me, and should cause me to be bound with Chains; perhaps through the Instigation of this ignorant Crescens, who delights more in vain Glory than in the Truth. This really happened just as he foretold; for not long after, Tatian g 1.163 the Disciple of Justin observes, this Crescens caused him to be Condemned to Death in the Sixth year of the Reign of Marcus Anto∣ninus the Philosopher h 1.164, in the year 166. It is not certainly known what kind of Punishment was inflicted on him, unless we stand by the Accounts which are given us in the Menelogi••m i 1.165 of the Greeks, or the Acts of his Martyrdom k 1.166 related by Metaphrastes, which seem to be very an∣cient; wherein it is declared, that he was beheaded by the command of Rusticus the Prefect o•• Gover∣nour

of the City of Rome, under whom Epiphanius l 1.167 likewise affirms, that S. Justin suffered Mar∣tyrdom.

Besides these two Apologies, there are several other Books of this ancient Father, as, his excellent Dialogue againg Tryp•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Jew, which was Composed by him after his first Apology, since he ex∣presly assures us therein, that he had informed the Emperor, in a particular Writing, that some Sama∣ritans were led away with the Impostures of S•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉; m 1.168 which passage is in his Apology, de∣dicated to the Emperor 〈◊〉〈◊〉, from whence it follows that it was written before this Dialogue Eusebius says, that this Conference was holden at Ephesus, but whether S. Justin ever had any Discourse with Tryphon, or whether he only feigned it, as Blato, Cicero and many others have done, this Book is very considerable. This Author proves against the Jews by an infinite Number of passages taken from the Old Testament, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Word; who first appeared unto the Patriarchs, and afterward condescended so far as to be made Man, and to be born of the Virgin Mary, for our Salvation. Of all the Writings of this ancient Martyr cited by Eusebius, these only that we have new mentioned remain entire; to which may be added, a Fragment of his Trea∣tise of Monarchy, wherein (says Eusebius) he demonstrated the Unity of one God, not only by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, but also by the Testimony of profane Authors the first part of this Work is lost, but I am persuaded, that there is no reason to doubt, but that the Tract which is at present Entituled, Of Monarchy, is the Second part thereof, and so much the rather, because it begins after this manner; n 1.169 Having already produced Divine Authority; I shall also make use of humane Alle∣gations, from whence it evidently appears, that this Book which we now have, is the Second part of that mentioned by Eusebius.

We might likewise attribute to S. Justin, two Orations which are prefixed at the beginning of his Works, wherein he exhorts the Gentiles to embrace the Christian Religion, in shewing the absurdity and novelty of that of the Pa••ans, and the Truth and Antiquity of ours. These two Discourses are undoubtedly ancient, and tho' they are not quoted by Eusebius, and the style of them seems to be a little different from that of S. Justin, yet we may affirm them to have been written by him, without any injury to his Reputation. The same Judgment may likewise be given of the Epistle to Diognetus, o 1.170 which was also Composed by an ancient Author, who lived in a time when the Christians were under Persecution: But the other Epistle written to Zena and Serenus, does not agree in the least with the style of S. Justin, and contains many Precepts, which rather concern Monks than simple Christians p 1.171.

As for the other Works that bear the Name of this Father; Besides that they are not cited by Euse∣bius, nor any of the ancient Writers, we have positive Proofs that they are counterfeit. The first of these is a Treatise purely Philosophical, the Compiler whereof produceth divers passages of Aristo∣tle's Physick; which he confutes very dryly, and in a style altogether different, not only from that of S. Justin, but even from that of the Age wherein he lived. At the end of this Tract there is another written, after the same manner, and probably Composed by the same Author, wherein are compre∣hended five Questions, which he calls Christian, tho' they have a much greater Tincture of the subtilty of a Philosopher, than of the simplicity of a Christian. Besides the Author of this Book resolves these Questions, after the method of the Pagan Philosophers; and afterwards disallows of the first Answer, by accommodating Christianity to Philosophy; to this are annexed several Philosophical Axioms to∣gether with divers Questions and Answers concerning incorporeal things, and the Resurrection. All these Books are written in the same style and by the same Author after the Heresie of the Manichees was sprung up, which is, often mentioned therein; now since this Heresie was not known till above an Hundred years after the Death of S. Justin, it must necessarily be affirmed that they were not written by him.

The Book of Answers to the Questions of the Orthodox, containing 146 that are very curious, is much more usefull, and more worthy of a Divine than the preceding; but neither can this belong to S. Justin, tho' it is ascribed to him by Photius; for besides that this sort of Questions and Answers were not usual in his time, in which no regard was had to matters of Curiosity, such as the most part of those that are comprised in this Work, Origen is cited in Quest. 82. and 88. S. Irenaeus in the 115.

and the Manichees in the 127. The Author Discourseth there of the Mysteries of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, in such Expressions, and with such Precautions as were not in use, until those Heresies were started in which these Truths were called in Question. We find the Words Hypostasis, Person, Consubstantial, in Quest. 16, 17, 139, 144. according to the Sense that was attributed to them by the Church, in the Fifth and Sixth Century. In Quest. 126, he says, that at the time when this Book was written, Christianity was no longer under the Dominion of Paganism, which evidently shews that the Author of these Questions is much later than S. Justin, not to mention that there are some things in this Work, which are not conformable to the Doctrine of this Father; as for Ex∣ample, in Quest. 52. he denies that the Witch of Endor caused the Soul of Samuel to return, which is asserted by S. Justin, in his Dialogue against Tryphon; in Quest. 112. he says that it was a created An∣gel that communed with Moses and Jacob, which is expresly contrary to the Doctrine of this Father, and of the rest of the Writers of that Age, who believed it to be the Word himself. Some attribute these Questions to Theodoret, as well because they come near his way of writing, as because there are several Phrases used by this Writer, which are also frequently found in Theodoret. However it be, this Book was written by an Author, who lived about the Fifth or Sixth Age of the Church. Lastly, the Exposition of Faith, attributed to S. Justin, and cited by Leontius, and Euthymius Zagabenus too plainly refutes the Errors of the Arians, Nestorians and Eutychians to be written near the Age, in which this Father lived.

It were to be wished, that instead of these Books which are falsly ascribed to S. Justin, we had those that were really Composed by him, whereof the Titles only remain at present. He wrote as he him∣self declares q 1.172, a Treatise against Heresies; and it is difficult to determine, whether the Book a∣gainst Marcion, cited by S. Irenaeus in two several places, was part of this Tract; or whether it were a distinct Work, according to the Opinion of S. Jerom; however r 1.173, there is nothing now extant, except two passages quoted by S. Irenaeus. We have also entirely lost two Books that were Com∣posed by S. Justin, against the Gentiles, in the first of which, after having Discoursed of divers Que∣stions that are usually debated, as well by the Christians, as among the Pagan Philosophers, he treated of the Nature of Demons; the other was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called and contained a Confutation of the Errors of the Heathens. It may perhaps be suspected by some, that those two Treatises are the Ora∣tions prefixed at the beginning of the Works of S. Justin, immediately before his two Apologies, but besides that they have different Titles, there is not any Description in either of the two, of the Nature of Demons. Moreover there was another Work called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, the Psalmist, and a Book of Collections concerning the Soul, wherein he produced the Opinions of the Pagan Philosophers, promising to give his own in another Discourse on this Subject. These are all the Writings of S. Justin mentioned by Eusebius, S. Jerom and Photius; besides which (says Eusebius) There are many other Works written by him, in the hands of the Christians; Perhaps the Epistle to Diognetus, and the two Books against the Gentiles belong to this Number. Anastasius Sinaita and Glycas, cite a Commentary of this Father upon the Hexameron. Methodius, Leontius and S. John Damascen quote a Book of his concerning the Resurrection of the Body, but it is very probable, that these Writings are none of his.

This Author (says the Learned Photius, speaking of S. Justin) was perfectly skilled in the Christian Philosophy, and yet more in the Profane; he had acquired an universal Learning, and a perfect knowledge of History; but he hath taken no care to adorn the Natural Beauty of Philosophy, with the Artificial Orna∣ments of Eloquence; Therefore his Discourses tho' very Learned, have not the Elegancy and Grace of Eloquent Discourses. This Character appears throughout all his Works, which are extreamly full of Citations, and of passages taken from the Holy Scriptures and profane Authors, with little Order, and without any Ornament. He had joined to his exquisite Skill in the Pagan Philosophy, an ad∣mirable knowledge of the Sacred and Prophetical Writings, as also of the Principles of the Christi∣an Religion; that there is scarce any one of the ancient Fathers who ever Discoursed more accurately, than he hath done of all its Mysteries. It is true indeed, that as to the Doctrine of the Trinity (r),

he seems to differ from us in following the Platonick Maxims; but it will appear to those who shall thoroughly examine his Opinions, and those of the ancient Fathers, that in the main they agree with ours s 1.174, and that they are only different in the manner of Expression. He asserts with many of the ancient Writers, that the Souls of Men after their Separation from the Body, shall wait for the Day of Judgment, to be either entirely happy or miserable t 1.175; but at the same time he ac∣knowledgeth, that during this interval they shall receive Punishments or Rewards, according to their Deserts. Moreover he believes (according to the Opinion of the most part of the primitive Christians) that the Just after the Resurrection shall remain for the space of a Thousand years in the City of Jerusalem where they shall enjoy all lawful Pleasures u 1.176. He seems to have thought that the Souls of the wicked should at last become capable of dying x 1.177; tho' in other places y 1.178 he affirms that their torments shall be eternal. He has a peculiar Opinion concerning the Souls of the righteous; which he affirms to have been before the coming of Jesus Christ, under the power of the Devil, who could cause them to appear whensoever he should think fit z 1.179. He hath asserted, as S. Irenaeus assures us, aa 1.180 that the Devils were ignorant of their Damnation until the coming of our Saviour; nay, he goes further in his Apology to the Emperor, affirming that they are not as yet thrust down into Eternal Flames bb 1.181 &c. Lastly, he seems not to despair of the Salvation of those who have lived Vertuously among the Gentiles, having only the knowledge of God without that of Jesus Christ. cc 1.182 These are almost all the particular Points wherein he hath departed from the present Opinions of the Catholick Church.

The Works of S. Justin were first Printed all together in Greek dd 1.183, by Robert Stephen in the years 1551 and 1571; except the Second Treatise against the Gentiles, and the Epistle to Diognetus, which were printed by themselves, by Henry Stephen in the years 1592, and 1595. This Edition was soon followed by that of Commelinus in Greek and Latin, published by Fridericus Silburgius, Anno Dom. 1593. It comprehends the entire Works of S. Justin, divided into Three Parts, the first whereof contains the Books against the Gentiles, the Second, the Dialogue against Tryphon, and the Third, the Tracts that were Composed for the Instruction of the Christians: They are translated by Langus; except the Second Oration against the Gentiles, and the Epistle to Diognetus, which are of Henry Stephen's Translation: at the end are subjoined some Notes of Silburgius, Stephens, and other Learned men. Morellus followed this Edition in the Impression of the Works of S. Justin, which he caused to be made at Paris in the years 1615, and 1656. only he added the small Tracts of A∣thenagoras, Theophilus, Hermias and Tatian. This last Edition is thought to be the best, and yet it is very imperfect, and it were to be wished that another might ere long be published; to this end a

new Version ought to be made of all St. Justin's Works, because Langus's hath many defects, the an∣cient Manuscripts ought to be consulted (if any such can be found) and exactly compared with the Greek Text, which was not corrected by Silburgius from any Manuscript: Lastly, some Annotations ought to be added, and many of those that are already Printed should be cut off.

As for the disposing of these Works, the following Order may be observed; They should be divided into Three Classes. 1. Those that were really Composed by S. Justin. 2. Those that may be his, tho' we cannot certainly affirm it. And, 3. Those that are manifestly Supposititious. His Apology to the Emperor Antoninus, that which ought to be called the first Apology, that so for the Future it may always be cited under that Name, ought to be placed in the Front: the other Apology that im∣mediately follows, should be Entituled the Second; after this might be inserted the Fragment of the Books concerning Monarchy; the excellent Dialogue against Tryphon, should be the last Treatise of this Class at least, till some of those that are lost, happen to be found. The Second Class should con∣tain the two Orations to the Greek, and the Epistle to Diognetus. The Third may take in all the Books that are undoubtedly forged, which also might be distinguished into two Parts; in the first whereof should be placed those Writings, that may be in some manner useful, such are the 146 Questi∣ons, the Exposition of the Faith, and the Epistles to Zena and Serenus; and then in the Second one may add the Philosophical Tracts above cited, if it should not be thought more convenient to omit them altogether.

MELITO.

MElito Bishop of Sardis in Asia, is one of those Fathers, who wrote the most concerning the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church; but there remains nothing of them at present but * 1.184 the Titles, and a few small Fragments produced by Eusebius in the Fourth Book of his History, chap. 26. The Titles are these; Two Books of the Feast of Easter, one of the Lives of the Prophets a 1.185 one of the Church, one of the Lords-Day, one concerning the Nature of Man, another of his Creation, one of the submission of the Senses unto Faith b 1.186, a Book concerning the Soul, the Body, and the Spirit, one of Baptism, another of Truth, another concerning the Generation of Jesus Christ, one of Prophecy, one of Hospitality, another entituled the Key, one of the Devil, another of the Apocalypse, one of God incarnate c 1.187, and a Collection taken out of the Holy Scriptures. Lastly, an Apology presented to Marcus Antoninus, whereof we have a fragment in Eusebius, wherein Melito intreats the Empe∣ror, that he would vouchsafe to examine the Accusations that were alledged against the Christians, and to cause the Persecution to cease by revoking the Edict that he had published against them: He represents to him, that the Christian Religion was so far from being destructive to the Roman Empire, that it was very much augmented since the propagation thereof; that this Religion was persecuted only by wicked Emperors, such as Nero and Domitian; that the Emperors Adrian and Antoninus had written several Letters in its behalf, and therefore he hoped to obtain of his Clemency and Generosity, the favour which he so earnestly requested. Eusebius also gives us another little Fragment out of the Book concerning Easter, to shew the time when this Author wrote, in which he mentions Sagaris Bishop of Laodicea, whom he affirms to have suffered Martyrdom, under Servilius Paulus the Pro-consul of Asia. As also another Fragment more considerable, which is the Preface to his Collections, wherein he gives us a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, omitting those that are not included in the Canon of the Jews; these are the Books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom (for he calls the Book of the Proverbs by the Name of Wisdom) Judith, Esther, and the two Books of the Maccabees.

There is also another Fragment of Melito's preserv'd by the Author of the Chronicle commonly called the Alexandrian in Olympiad 236. wherein he says, that the Christians do not adore insensible Stones, but that they worship one God alone; who is before all things, and in all things, and Jesus Christ who is God and the Word before all Ages. It is not known from what Book this Fragment was taken; but it is probable, that it is in his Apology to the Emperor. Some other passages are likewise attributed to him, which are taken out of a Catena of the Greek Fathers upon Genesis, but they seem to me to be unworthy of this Author d 1.188; we find also in the Bibliotheca Patrum, ano∣ther Book under his Name Entituled, Of the Passage or Death of the Virgin Mary, which is inserted

by Pope Gelasius amongst the Apocryphal Writings, and rejected by Bede; But it is at present gene∣rally agreed, that this Book as not being cited by any of the ancient Writers, and containing many untruths and absurdities, is a counterfeit Work. Melito lived under the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, he presented his Apology in the Second year of this Emperor, that is to say, in the Year of our Lord 182. and died before the Pontificate of Victor, as appears from the Epistle of Polycrates to this Pope, wherein he mentions him, as already dead in these Words: Why should not I speak of Melito, whose Actions were regulated by the Motions of the Holy Ghost, who lyes enterr'd at Sardes, where he expects the Judgment and Resurrection? This shews that Melito was esteemed as a Prophet, that is to say, as a Man inspired by God, according to the Testimony of Tertullian produced by S. Jerom. If the same Tertullian had not assured us, that this Author wrote Elegantly and was a good Orator, it would be very difficult to give any Judgment concerning his Style, by that little of his Writings which is yet extant.

TATIAN.

TATIAN Sirnamed the Assyrian, a 1.189 from the Name of his Country, was an able Orator, and S. Justin's Scholar. He remained in the Communion of the Church during the Life of his Master, but after his Martyrdom being puffed up with Pride, which often attends the O∣pinion * 1.190 of Knowledge, he became Head and Author of a new Sect b 1.191, which was called the Heresie of the Encratites, or of the Continent, because these Sectaries condemned Marriage, as also the use of diverssorts of Meats and Wine, leading a sober and austere Life in appearance; besides this, they maintained some of the Errors of the Valentinians, and affirmed that our Fore-Fathers were Damn'd: This Sect was afterwards augmented by Severus c 1.192, from whom they took the Name of Severians: these later rejected the Epistles of S. Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles. But to return to Tatian; he having got a great facility in writing, Composed a great number of Books, and among others an excellent Treatise against the Gentiles, which is most esteemed of all his Works, as also a Gospel Collected from the Four Evangelists.

There is yet extant the Treatise of Tatian against the Gentiles, which was first Printed at Zurick, in the Year 1646. together with the Version of Conrad••s Gesner, afterwards inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum; and Lastly, annexed to the Works of S. Justin; the Title thereof is as follows: The Discourse of Tatian against the Gentiles, proving that the Greeks are not the Inventors of any of the Sciences, as they boast themselves to be, but that they were all invented by those whom they call Barbarians. This is indeed the Subject of the beginning of his Discourse, but then he adds, that the Greeks corrupted the Sciences, which they received from the Barbarians, and more especially Philosophy. Afterwards he proceeds to the Explication and defence of the Christian Religion; he Treats of the Nature of God, of the Word, of the Resurrection of the Body, and Freedom of the Soul: He confutes the Opinion of Fate, he dis∣courseth of the Nature of the Soul, and of Devils, discovering the Snares that they lay for Men. He intermixeth all these things with several Satyrical Reflections on the ridiculous Theology of the Pagans, and the corrupt manners of their Gods and Philosophers, shewing at the same time, that the Writings of Moses, are more ancient than all other Histories, and giving an admirable Description of the Holy Conversation of the Christians. This Work is extremely full of profane Learning, and the Style thereof is Elegant enough, but exuberant, and not very elaborate; and the Matters therein contained are not digested into any Order. It was certainly Composed by Tatian, before he fell into Heresie, tho' after S. Justin's Death, since he doth not condemn the State of Matrimony in that Book d 1.193. He argues concerning the Generation of the Word, in such Expressions as do not agree with our manner of ex∣plaining it, but they may be interpreted in a Sense which is not Heretical e 1.194. He maintains that the Angels, and Devils consist of Bodies and Souls: He denies the Immortality of the later, affirming that they die, and that they shall hereafter rise again with their respective Bodies, which is a considerable Error.

As for the Gospel that was Compiled by Tatian, S. Epiphanius in his Description of the Heresie of the Nazarenes, hath confounded it with that which was Entituled: The Gospel according to the He∣brews;

and indeed they had this in common, that the Genealogy of Jesus Christ was not in either of them: But the Gospel according to the Hebrews was older than Tatian's; besides the later was only a kind of a Catena or Concordance, wherein this Author had gathered together, what he judged proper to be Collected out of the Four Evangelists. S. Ambrose seems to mention it in the Preface to his Com∣mentaries on S. Luke; when he declares, that some Writers had made one single Gospel out of the Four, by Collecting those passages, which they believed to be most favourable to their Opinions, and omitting the rest. The Gospel of Tatian was Composed after this manner; in which he retrenched the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, together with all that which relates to his human Nature, and his Extrac∣tion from the Stock of David. Baronius thought that that was the Work of Tatian, which is in the Seventh Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum, under the Name of Ammonius; but this is a distinct Book; for as Valesius observes, it is an Historical Epitome of the Gospels, written by an ancient Orthodox Author, containing many passages, wherein Jesus Christ is called the Son of David; whereas Tatian's Gospel was a Rhapsody of the passages taken out of the four Evangelists, on purpose to induce us to believe that our Saviour was not descended from the Lineage of David. Tatian lived after the Death of S. Justin, and died about the time when S. Irenaeus wrote his Book concerning the Heresies. S. Cle∣ment in the Third Book of his Stromata, cites a Treatise of this Author Entituled, Of Perfection accor∣ding to the Saviour, written by him after his Fall into Heresie; he produceth a passage out of it against Marriage, which he confutes in Pag. 460.

ATHENAGORAS and HERMIAS.

ATHENAGORAS an Athenian Philosopher, lived in the time of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, * 1.195 to whom he presented an Apology for the Christians a 1.196. This Work and its Author, were unknown to Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius, but it is cited by S. Epiphanius in the Heresie of Origen. In this Apology he refutes the three principle Calumnies that were alledged against the Christians, as 1. That they were Atheists. 2. That they eat humane Flesh. 3. That they committed horrible Crimes in their Assembles. To the first Accusation he makes Answer, that the Christians were not Atheists, since they acknowledged and adored one God in Three Persons, and lived Conformably to his Laws and Commandments, believing that he sees and knows all things; that they refused to worship Idols, and to offer Sacrifice to them, as being persuaded that they were not Dieties. He replys to the two last Objections, in shewing that the Life, Laws and Manners of the Christians were very far from Murther and those infamous Crimes whereof they were accused. He plainly Establisheth the Unity of the Essence of God, and the Trinity of the three Divine Per∣sons: He affirms that the Word, that remained in God from all Eternity departed from him, (if we may use such an Expression) to create and govern all things: He maintains the worship of Angels, and declares that they were created to take care of Affairs here below. He asserts that the Devils were ruined through the Love that they bore unto Women; he admits Free-will in its utmost Latitude; he makes divers Descriptions of the Holiness of the Conversation of the Christians; he commends Virginity; he condemneth second Marriages, calling them an honest Adultery; Lastly, he Treats of the Resurrec∣tion, and of the last Judgment.

There is another Treatise of this Father extant, concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, wherein he endeavours to prove, that it is not only not impossible, but even extremely credible: These two Books are written in a Dogmatical style; they were Printed separately in Greek and Latin b 1.197, Tran∣slated by Gesner, Nannius, Marsilius Ficinus and Suffridus, and are inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum, as also in Greek, in the Supplement to the Bibliotheca; and Lastly, after the Works of S. Justin, with the Annotations of Gesner, and Henry Stephen; there is another imperfect Tract annexed to them, which is a continual Series of Satyrical Reflections, on the Opinions and Philosophical Notions of the Gentiles, Composed by Hermias, a Christian Philosopher. But this Author is not known, nor the precise time when he wrote, however it is not to be doubted but that he is ancient, and that he lived before the Pagan Religion was extirpated. This little Book was Printed by it self in Greek and Latin, at Basil, Anno Dom. 1553.

THEOPHILUS Bishop of ANTIOCH.

THEY that imagine a 1.198, that this Theophilus whom we speak of is the same with him, to whom S. Luke dedicates the Acts of the Apostles, are grosly mistaken; for this Man was so far from being Contemporary with S. Luke and the Apostles, that he was not Ordained Bi∣shop * 1.199 of Antioch b 1.200, until the Year 170. after the Nativity of Jesus Christ, and he governed this Church Twelve or Thirteen Years, until the beginning of the Reign of Commodus c 1.201; that is to say, until the Years of our Lord 181, or 182. This Bishop was noe of the most vigorous Opposers of the Hereticks of his time; he wrote a considerable Book against Marcion, and a Treatise against the Heresie of Hermogenes. d 1.202, wherein he cited the Apocalypse. He likewise Composed other small Tracts, for the Instruction and Edification of the Faithfull: All these Works are entirely lost; but we have Three Books still written by him to Autolycus, a Learned Heathen of his Acquaintance, who had undertaken to vindicate his Religion against that of the Christians.

In the first of these Books he answers the Request, that had been made to him by that Heathen, to teach him how to know the true God, and after having declared that to attain to the knowledge of him, we must be purified in mind and heart, he proceeds to Treat of the Nature of God, and of those things which the Divines call his Attributes, as his Eternity, Immensity, Power, Invisibility; after∣ward he enlargeth on the Blessedness of the other Life, and on the Resurrection of the Body; he ob∣serves by the way, that Princes ought to be honoured as having received their Authority from God, and derives the Etymology of the word Christian from Unction. This first Book is properly a Dis∣course between him and Autolycus, in Answer to what this Heathen had said against the Religion of Jesus Christ. The second Book was written to convince him of the Falshood of his own Religion, and of the truth of the Christians. He begins with a Confutation of the Opinions that were main∣tained by the Pagans, concerning their Gods, and shews the Contradictions of the Philosophers, and Poets on this Subject; he explains at large the Creation of the World, and that which happened in the succeeding Ages; he Demonstrates that the History of Moses is the oldest, and truest History that ever was, and that the Poets have extracted many things from the Holy Scriptures, particularly their Re∣lations concerning the Torments of the Damned. In the third Book, after having proved that the Writings of the Heathens are full of an infinite number of Notions, contrary to right Reason and good Manners, he shews that the Doctrine and Lives of the Christians, are very far from those Crimes that are laid to their Charge. Lastly, at the end of his Work he adds an Historical Chronology, from the beginning of the World unto his Time, to prove that the History of Moses is the ancientest and the truest. It is apparent from this little Epitome, how well this Author was acquainted with profane History. These three Books are filled with a great Variety of curious Disquisitions concerning the Opinions of the Poets and Philosophers: Tho' there are but few things that relate immediately to the Doctrines of the Christian Religion; not that Theophilus was Ignorant of them, for it appears from several passages that he was very skilfull in these Matters, but in regard that he Composed this Book chiefly to convince a Pagan, he insists rather in proving our Religion, by Arguments from without, than by expounding its Doctrines. He is the first Author that hath applied the word Trinity e 1.203, to the Three Persons of the Godhead, but he calls the Third by the Name of Wisdom: He asserts two things concerning the Word, which seem to savour of the Arian Heresie; the first is, that the Word

may be in a Place, and the Second, that he was begotten in Time; but these Expressions, which are common to him, and many of the ancient Fathers, had a different Signification f 1.204 from that which was afterwards given them by the Arians.

Moreover these Books are full of Moral and Allegorical Expressions, the style is elegant, and the turn of the thoughts very agreeable, that whoever reads them, cannot doubt but that the Author was a very Eloquent Man. They are entituled in the Greek Manuscripts, The Books of Theophilus to Autolycus concerning the Faith of the Christians against the malicious Detracters of their Religion. They have been published in Greek and Latin, as also in Latin by Conradus Gesner, and Printed at Zurich in the Year 1546; afterward they were inserted in the Orthodoxographa, Printed at Basil in 1555. Fron∣to Ducaeus annexed them to the first Volume of the Supplement of the Bibliotheca Patrum set forth in 1624; and they were afterwards Printed at the end of the Works of S. Justin in the Edition of Mo∣rellus.

Besides these three Books, we have another Book in Latin attributed to Theophilus, consisting of Al∣legorical Commentaries on the four Gospels, which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum; There was a Com∣mentary on the Gospels under his name in S. Jerom's time, divers passages whereof are produced by him in his Annotations on S. Matthew; there were also Commentaries on the Proverbs of Solomon; but this Father observes in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, that they did not come up to the ele∣gancy or to the style of the Writings of Theophilus.

APOLLINARIUS, or, APOLLINARIS of HIERAPOLIS.

APollinarius, or, Apollinaris Bishop of Hierapolis, a City of Phrygia, wrote several Books under the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, the Titles whereof only remain at present; The first was an * 1.205 Oration dedicated to the Emperor in defence of the Christian Religion; The second a Trea∣tise against the Gentiles divided into five Books; The third, two Books concerning Truth; The fourth, two Tracts against the the Jews; The fifth was one or more Treatises against the Sect of the Montanists, which then began to appear. These are all the Works of this Author that are cited by Eusebius and S. Jerome a 1.206, they were extant in Photius's time, who having read his Books against the Gentiles, as also those concerning Piety and Truth b 1.207, declares, that he was much to be esteemed both for his Doctrine and his Style; wherefore I shall prefer the Judgment of this Learned Man be∣fore that of Trithemius, who without perusing the Works of Apollinarius, peremptorily asserts, that there seems to be more Zeal than Learning in what he has writ.

We find in Eusebius, Book 5. Chap. 16. a large fragment of a certain Author, whom he doth not name, against the Heresie of the Montanists, from whence Ruffinus and Nicephorus have asserted, that this Fragment was taken from the Discourses of Apollinarius against them, but they must of necessity be deceived; for Apollinarius composed his Books to confute their Opinions, when they first began to be divulged, whereas the Anonymous Author of this Fragment, wrote after the death of Montanus, Maximilla, and Theodotus, who were the Ringleaders of that Party; besides, he makes mention of this Heresie as maintained in a Country far distant from his, and established a great while ago, which plainly shews, that this Fragment belongs not to Apollinarius, and consequently, that there is not any part of his Works now extant.

DIONYSIUS of CORINTH.

DIonysius Bishop of Corinth lived under the Reign of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and in the beginning of Commodus's.

He not only took care of his own Flock, (says Eusebius, Book 4. Chap. 23.) but he also made the Christians of other Countrys partakers of his Divine * 1.208 Labours, causing them to fructifie every where by his Catholick Epistles, which he sent to many Churches. The first is written to the Lacedaemonians, containing an Instruction of the Catho∣lick Faith, and an Exhortation to Peace and Unity. The second is directed to the Athenians, to ex∣cite their Faith, and to induce them to lead a Life conformable to the Rules of the Gospel: He like∣wise reproves their negligence, whereby they had almost abandoned the Christian Religion ever since their Bishop Publius suffered Martyrdom in the Persecutions that were raised in his time: Moreover he mentions Quadratus, who was elected Bishop of Athens after the Martyrdom of Publius, and testifies, that the Christians of this City owed the renovation of the ardour of their Faith to his Care. Besides this, he informs us, that Dionysius the Areopagite being converted by St. Paul, (as it is re∣corded in the Acts of the Apostles) was constituted the first Bishop of Athens. There is also another Epistle written by him to the Nicomedians, wherein he confutes the Heresie of Marcion, and keeps close to the Rule of Faith. He likewise composed a Letter directed to the Church of Gortyna; as also to all those of Crete, in which he extreamly commends Philip their Bishop, to whom his whole Church had given authentick Testimonies of his singular Abilities and Generosity, and he admonish∣eth them to avoid Heresies. In his Epistle to the Amastrians, and to the other Churches of Pontus, addressing his Discourse to their Bishop Palma, he explains divers passages of the Holy Scriptures; He therein lays down several Precepts concerning Marriage and Chastity, determining at the same time, that all Penitents should be received that returned from any Crimes whatsoever, and even from Heresie. In the same Volume is contained another Epistle to the Gnossians, wherein he ad∣viseth Pinytus their Bishop not to impose on the Christians the heavy burden of the Obligation to preserve their Virginity, but to have respect unto the weakness which is incident to most of them. Pinytus in replying to this Epistle, extols and admires Dionysius of Corinth, and exhorts him at last to afford them more solid nourishment, and to send frequent Letters to him which might fill and satiate the People that were committted to his charge, lest being always nourished only with Milk, they should grow old, and yet remain in a kind of Intancy. This answer represents as it were a lively Portraiture of the Faith of Pinytus, his diligence in watching over the Flock, with which he was entrusted by God, his profound knowledge in Divinity, and his extraordinary Eloquence. We have also in our hand another Letter of Dionysius written to the Romans, and particularly directed to Soter, who was then their Bishop; a passage whereof it will be expedient here to produce, in which he recommends to them the continuation of a certain Custom, that had been always ob∣served by them from their first plantation unto the persecution which happened in our time. This is (says he) a custom which hath been established among you, O ye Romans, ever since the beginning of your Church, to be charitable unto your Brethren, and to send to divers Churches throughout the World things necessary for their subsistence; you comfort the poor in their indigence, and relieve the urgent ne∣cessities of those that are condemned to the Mines; This custom you have received from your Ancestors, which the blessed Bishop Soter hath not only retained, but even augmented, by abundantly distributing the Donatives appointed for the relief of the Faithful, and cherishing as a Father would do his Children all the Brethren who came to Rome. He mentions St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which had been for a long time constantly read in the Church of Corinth, as he testifies in these Words. We have even now passed the Lords Day, when we perused your Epistle, which we shall hereafter read con∣tinually, as we do that of St. Clement, that we may be replenished with Precepts and wholsom Instructi∣ons: Afterward he observes, that his Letters were corrupted by Falsifiers in these Words: I wrote se∣veral Epistles at the Entreaty of the Brethren, but the Ministers of the Devil have filled them with Tares, by retrenching and adding many things; they may well expect this terrible Sentence: Cursed be he that adds or diminisheth any thing from my Words. Wherefore it is not to be admir'd, that some have presumed even to corrupt the Sacred Writings, since they have done it in Books of much less Authority. Besides these Epistles, there is another Extant, written to Chrysophora his faithful Sister, to whom he gave Instructions suitable, carefully nourishing her with spiritual Food.

These are the Contents of this passage of Eusebius, concerning the Epistles of St. Dionysius, which I have set down entire, because he hath made use of the same Method as we should have done, in case those Epistles had been still Extant.

Moreover Eusebius in his 2d. Book Chap. 25. recites another Fragment of his Epistle to the Romans, wherein it mention'd the Death of St. Peter, in the City of Rome in these Words.

Thus (says he) as I may so say, by your Exhortations you have mixed the Grain that sprung from the Seed of St. Peter and S. Paul, that is to say, the Romans and the Corinthians: for these two glorious Apostles entring into our City of Corinth, instructed us in dispersing the spiritual Seed of the Gospel, afterwards they passed together into Italy, and having given you also the like Instructions, they suffered Martyrdom with you at the same time.

This is all that we certainly know concerning the Life and Writings of Diony∣sius Bishop of Corinth. In the Menologium of the Greeks, he is reckoned among the Martyrs, a 1.209 but

since neither Eusebius, nor S. Jerom take any Notice of the matter, I am apt to believe that the Latin Church hath done more prudently in placing him in their Martyrology in the Rank of the Confessors.

Pinytus, Philippus, Modestus, Musanus, and Bardesanes.

AT the same time lived Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus in the Island of Crete, who replyed (as we have even now observ'd) to S. Denys of Corinth, in an Eloquent and Learned Epistle, Philip∣pus * 1.210 Bishop of Gortyna, mentioned likewise by the later, wrote a Treatise against Marcion as well as Modestus a 1.211, but less accurate.

Among these may be reckoned Musanus, who wrote a Work against the Encratites, and Barde∣sanes b 1.212 the Syrian, who Composed two Tracts translated into Greek by his Disciples, the First a∣gainst Marcion, and other Hereticks, and the Second concerning Fate; this last was dedicated to the Emperour Antoninus c 1.213. Besides he wrote other Treatises upon the Persecution, that was then raised against the Christians of Syria: Eusebius observes, that this Author having been engaged in the Sect of the Valentinians, tho' he had acknowledged and retracted the most part of his Errors, yet he re∣tained some of them; wherefore he is accused by S. Jerom, of being the Deviser of a new Heresie: Tho' he owns that Bardesanes was endued with a very quick Apprehension, and was extremely vehe∣ment in his Disputes. S. Epiphanius likewise makes him to be the Ring-leader of an Heresie.

Bar∣desanes (says he in Haeres. 56.) is the Author of the Heresie of the Bardasianites, he was a Native of Mesopotamia, and an Inhabitant of the City of Edessa; moreover he was a very good Christian d 1.214, and wrote many useful Books, being well skill'd in the Greek and Syriack Tongues e 1.215. He was in∣timately acquainted with Abgarus Prince of Edessa, and assisted him in his Studies; he lived until the time of Antoninus Verus, and Collected many things concerning Fate against the Astronomer Abi∣das: There are also other Works written by him agreeable to the Faith: He Courageously withstood Apollonius the Friend of Antoninus f 1.216, who advised him to deny that he was a Christian, and un∣dauntedly replyed, that he did not fear Death, which he could not avoid, tho' he should do that which the Emperor required: But at last this Man adorned with so many Vertues fell into Heresie, suffering himself to be infected with the Errors of the Valentinians; inventing divers Aeones, and de∣nying the Resurrection of the Dead. He acknowledged indeed the Law and the Prophets, toge∣ther with the whole New Testament, but then he admitted several Apocryphal Books along with them.

Eusebius in Lib. 6. Praeparat. Evangl. produceth an excellent Fragment of the Writings of this Author against Fate, whereby it is evident that it was written in the Form of a Dialog••••. He proves in this Fragment, that Men are not Conducted by Nature and Necessity as brute Beasts, but by Reason and with Liberty, because, altho' the Nature of all Men be the same; yet there are infinite numbers of Manners, Customs, Laws and Religions among them, that are different even in the same Country, and under the very same Climate, which cannot proceed but from the different Choice that is made by them. Afterwards having alledged many Examples to evince this Truth, he adds:

What shall we say, of the Society of Christians, who are dispersed throughout all the Cities of the World, and who cannot be induced by any Consideration, nor by any Arguments whatsoever, to follow the Manners and Customs of those among whom they reside; but on the contrary, wheresoever they are, they still adhere to peculiar Laws, and have Manners different from those of the People among whom they live, without being perswaded by any means to commit those things, which their Master hath declared to them to be Criminal, chusing rather to suffer Poverty, Dangers, Ignominy, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and even Death it self?

This passage set down by Eusebius, not only shews that Bardesanes was a Person of a quick Apprehension, and of a vehement Temper, (as hath been observed by S. Jerom) but it likewise informs us, that he had acquired much Learning g 1.217, and that his Style wanted nei∣ther Elegancy nor Ornament.

S. IRENAEUS.

WE know nothing of the Country of S. Irenaeus a 1.218, but only in general, that he was a Greek. It is probable, that he was at first Educated in the Christian Religion b 1.219, or at * 1.220 least that he made profession thereof even from his Youth, during which he was a Di∣sciple of S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna in Asia, who was then very Old. This induceth me to believe, that this Father could not be born till about the end of the Reign of the Emperor A∣drian, or the beginning of that of Antoninus Pius, some time before the Year 140, after the Nativity of Jesus Christ c 1.221. He was also a Disciple of Papias, if we may believe S. Jerom d 1.222, and perhaps it is he whom he frequently cites in his Work against the Heresies, under the Name of an Elder, that had seen the Successors of the Apostles e 1.223. After he had thus spent the time of his Youth in the School of the most Learned of the Apostles, f 1.224 he went into France; where he was ordained Priest of the Church

of Lyons by Pothinus, who was Bishop of that See g 1.225. And when this Holy Prelate had suffered Mar∣tyrdom in the 90th▪ Year of his Age, being the 17th of the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, and the 178th Year of Jesus Christ, Irenaeus was Elected his Successor upon his return from a Voyage that ••e made to Rome h 1.226; having carried several Letters thither written to Pope Eleutherus, by the Ma•••••••••• of Lyons, concerning the new Sect of the Mont••••ists. At the end of this Epistle, these Holy Men re∣commended S. Irenaeus in these words: We have desired our dear Brother and Collegue Irenaeus, to carry this Letter unto you; we commit him unto your Care; and we entreat you to esteem him as a Person that hath very much Zeal for the Gospel of Jesus Christ; if we believed that his Dignity would add any thing to his worth, we would have recommended him to you in quality of a Priest; but he is much more recom∣mendable for his Zeal and Piety.

S. Irenaeus being constituted Bishop, was not only employed in governing his particular Church with singular prudence, but he applyed himself also to the preserving of all the other Churches in the World from the infection of Heresies, which were then spread abroad in great numbers. And it was on this account i 1.227 that he Composed in Greek k 1.228▪ under the Pontificate of Elutherus l 1.229 five

Books against Heresies, bearing this Tide m 1.230, The Confutation and Subversion of that which is falsely called Knowledge. He wrote likewise at the same time two Epistles to two several Hereticks of Rome, one whereof was directed to Blastus, and the other to Florinus, whom he knew when he was the Di∣sciple of S. Polycarp. In the first of these Letters he treated of Schism, and in the second concerning Monarchy. In the latter he proved, that there was but one God, and that he was not the Author of Evil; for this was at first the principal Error of Florinus, tho' he soon fell into those of the Valenti∣nians, which obbliged S. Irenaeus to dedicate another Work to him, Entituled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it was written against the Octonary of the Aeons of the Valentinians.

Not long after, under the Ponficate of Victor the Successor of Eleutherus, the Controversie that arose between the Asiatick Bishops and this Pope, gave occasion to S. Irenaeus to use his utmost endea∣vours to re-establish Peace. The subject of this dispute was to know on what day Easter ought to be observed; The Bishops of Asia, according to their ancient custom, always celebrated that Festival on the 14th of the Moon of March, on whatever day of the week it happened, whereas the Western Churches waited for the Lords-Day before they celebrated it. This difference in point of practice, which seems to be but of little consequence, produced some disturbance among the Churches of the first Ages; and when S. Polycarp came to Rome in the time of Pope Anicetus, these two Bishops ear∣nestly endeavoured to accommodate this matter; but not being able to perswade one another to leave their former Custom, (so jealous have Churches always been of their Ceremonies and Customs) they parted very good Friends, thinking that a difference of so little moment ought not to interrupt their mutual Agreement. But under the Pontificate of Victor, this Contest was revived with greater heat; and had well nigh caused a division in the Catholick Church. For this Pope, incensed because the Bi∣shops of Asia being very far from submitting to the Threats and Penalties which he had denounced a∣gainst them, in case they refused to abolish their own Custom, and to Conform to that of the Western Churches, had procured a large Epistle to be written to him by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus in vindi∣cation thereof; took a resolution to drive Polycrates and the Asiatick Bishops out of their Churches, and sent every where Letters (says Eusebius) in which he declared them to be Excommunicated. Where∣upon the other Bishops, and even those that celebrated the Feast of Easter with those of the West, disapproved the proceedings of Victor, and wrote Letters to exhort him to take other Measures more conformable to Peace and Charity. But there was none that performed this with greater efficacy than S. Irenaeus, who wrote an Epistle to him under the name of the Church of France, wherein he de∣clares, that tho' he himself solemnized the Feast of Easter on the Lord's Day according to his manner, yet he could not approve of his undertaking to Excommunicate whole Churches for the observation of a Cu∣stom which they had received from their Ancestors. He advertiseth him, that different Customs have been used in Churches not only in the Celebration of the Festival of Easter, but also of Fasts, and in di∣vers other matters of practice. Lastly, he lays before him, that his Predecessors did not contend with the Asiatick Bishops in this matter; and that S. Polycarp being arrived at Rome, and having holden a Conference with Pope Anicetus touching this affair, they decreed, that mutual Communion and Peace ought not to be broken for a matter of so small importance. It is probable that Victor was convinced by these Reasons; for tho' the Asiaticks did not lay aside their Custom, yet it doth not appear that the Union between them and the Bishops of Rome was thereupon discontinued. This Epistle is pro∣duced by Eusebius, who affirms, that this Father wrote many others of the like nature to other Bishops.

To return to the Works of S. Irenaeus, besides those that we have already mentioned, he wrote a Treatise against the Gentiles very concise and extremely necessary, (says Eusebius) Entituled, Of Knowledge n 1.231, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as also another Tract which he wrote to Marcion, to shew what was the Doctrine that was Preached by the Apostles; and lastly, a Book containing several Dissertations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on different Subjects, wherein (according to the Testimony of Eusebius) he quotes the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. These are all the Works of S. Irenaeus that Eusebius and S. Jerome mention o 1.232, but it is not known when these last were written.

The Death of S. Irenaeus was no less glorious than his Life; for after having governed the Flock which Jesus Christ had committed to his Charge for 24 years, he was not willing to abandon it in the time of the persecution of the Emperor Severus, which was much more cruel in France than in any other part of the World. He suffered Martyrdom at Lyons with all the Christians that were found in that City, and in so great numbers that their Blood ran down through all the Streets, according to the report of Gregory of Tours in the first Book of his History, Chap. 27. We have not any par∣ticular account of his Martyrdom, which happened in the year, 202, or 203, after the Nativity of Jesus Christ.

Of all the Works of this Father, there remains only in our possession a very barbarous Version of those against the Heresies, and some few Greek Fragments of these Books given us by Eusebius, Theodoret, S. Epiphanius, and S. Johannes Damascenus, which are collected in the last Edition of Feu∣ardentius, and in the Writings of Halloixius. There is also a Fragment of his Epistle to Florinus ex∣tant, and a considerable part of that to Victor, and an Advertisement which he had inserted at the end of his Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to oblige the Transcribers thereof, faithfully to revise and correct their Copy from his Manuscript. The Version of the five Books concerning the Heresies, tho' Barbarous (as I have hinted already) and full of Faults, yet is a very valuable Fragment; for the Variety which is in it is admirable.

In the First Book, after having described at large the Errors of the Valentinians, in Chap. 1. He opposeth to them in the Second, the Faith of all the Churches in the World, which he comprehends in a kind of Creed; In the Third and fourth Chapters, he proceeds to shew that all the Churches and all Christians agree in this Faith, and that the most Learned cannot add any thing to it, or make any Alterations from it, nor the most simple and ignorant, diminish any part of it. The following Chapters are spent in explaining the absurd Notions of Valentinus and his Disciples. In the 20th he returns to the Source and Original of the Hereticks, and beginning with Simon Magus, he gives an Account successively of all the Heresies that appeared since the time of the Sorcerer, even unto that wherein he wrote. This first Book indeed is extremely tedious, being fill'd with almost nothing else but the wild Conceits, and extravagant Imaginations of the primitive Hereticks: There is a notable passage in it concerning Pennance, upon the occasion of certain Women, who being defiled by a famous Impostor named Mark, afterwards did Pennance, during the remainder of their Lives. In the Se∣cond Book, S. Irenaeus begins to impugn the Errors which he had barely recited in the First: He chiefly makes use of the Principles of the Hereticks in opposing them, and shews that they contradict themselves, and that all their Whimsies are ridiculous and ill laid together. In the Third Book he confutes them by the Authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition: He proves that it is impossible, that all the Churches in the World should agree together, to alter the Apostolical Doctrine; that the Evangelists and Apo∣stles knew but one only God, the Greator of Heaven and Earth, and one Iesus Christ God and Man, who was born of a Virgin, who is not the Son of Joseph, but was really Man, and that he actually suffered, and not in appearance only, as was pretended by the Hereticks. He occasionally refutes the Error of Tatian, concerning the Damnation of Adam, and maintains as a certain truth, that he is saved. In the Fourth Book he continues to demonstrate, that there is but one God; par∣ticularly, he shews against Marcion, that the same God is exhibited in the Old and New Testament; he Answers all the Objections of the Hereticks, and especially those which they took from Scripture; afterwards he alledgeth the Reasons that induce a spiritual Man, that is to say, a Christian, to con∣demn the Pagans, Jews, Hereticks, and Schismaticks. Lastly, he rejects the Opinion of those who affirmed, that Men were naturally good or evil, and proves the Liberty of Mankind. In the last Book, he Treats of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, of the Fall of Man, of the Resurrection of the last Judgment, of Anti-Christ, and of the State of Souls after Death. This is in General the Subject of every one of the Books of S. Irenaeus: and they that peruse them will find several other passages rela∣ting to some weighty Articles of our Religion.

There are for Example, many excellent Paragraphs concerning the Holy Scriptures, and among others, one in Book 2. Chap. 46, and 47. There are very considerable passages touching the Eucharist in Book 3. Chap. 19. Book 4. Chap. 32. and 34. and in Book 5. Chap. 4. Where he proves the Re∣surrection of the Body against the Valentinians, because it is not credible, that being nourished with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it should remain in Corruption: He mentions the Three Persons of the Trinity p 1.233. In many places of his Works, and almost as often as he speaks of the Word he establisheth his Divinity, Eternity q 1.234 and Equality with the Father r 1.235.

In the Second Book s 1.236, he Treats at large ••onccerning the Faculties of the Soul; he conceives that it is distinguished from the Body, and that it is of a different Nature; he there refu••es the Metempsy∣chosi••, or Transmigration of Souls out of one Body into another, and proves that those of the just shall subsist Eternally. But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 s•…•…s to have believed, as well as S. Justin, that they are immortal only through Grace, and that those of the wicked shall cease to be, after they have been tormented for a long time. He maintains also another particular Opinion, that the Souls assume the Figure of their Bodies, but this word Figure may be understood of some peculiar Quality of the Soul.

He Discourseth in many places of the Fall of the first Man, and of the lamentable Consequences of his Sin t 1.237, he teacheth that to repair this 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and for the Redemption of Mankind, the Word was made Man, and that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is through Grace, that he hath merited for us by his Passion, that all Men may be saved u 1.238. As for the State of Souls separated from their Bodies, he determined that they were conveyed into an invisible place, where they expected the Resurrection of the Body, and that the Just after having Re••gned with Jesus Christ on Earth, during the space of a Thousand years, and enjoyed temporal Pleasures, should enter into Heaven, to possess Eternal Happiness x 1.239. He imagined also, that our Saviou•• descended into Hell, to preach the Faith there into the Patriarchs, and to the ancient just Men, as well Jews as Gentiles, and that they that believed at his Preaching should be reckoned in the number of the Saints y 1.240. Moreover he maintained some other particular Opinions; he believed for Example, that Jesus Christ lived above Fifty years upon Earth z 1.241, and that as Man. He was ignorant of the Day of Judgment, &c. He approves the Judgment of S. Ju∣stin, that the Devil knew not his Condemnation before the coming of Jesus Christ aa 1.242. He asserts, that the Saints shall und••rst••nd by little and little, those things whereof they had no knowledge in their Entrance into Happiness bb 1.243. Lastly, he imagines that God sent Enoch to the Angels cc 1.244, whom he conceives to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c••rporeal. The ancient Propagators of Christianity ought to be excused for these sorts of Opinions, th•…•… being scarcely one of them that had not admitted some Notions almost like these.

The Style of S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (as far as we can judge by that part of his Works, which as yet remains) is succinct, clear and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but not very sublime: He declares himself in his Preface to the First Book: That the Elegancy of a po••••e Dissertation ought not to be sought for in his Works, because residing among the Celtae, it is impossible but that he should ••nter many barbarous Words; that he did not affect Discourse with Eloquence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ornament, and that he knew not how to perswade by the force of his Expres∣sions, but that he wrote with a vulgar Simplicity. He takes more pains to instruct his Reader, than to divert him, and he endeavours more to convince him by the Matters which he propounded, than by the manner of Expressing them. It cannot be doubted, but that he was a very profound Scho∣lar in all sorts of Knowledge, as well prophane as Sacred; he perfectly understood the Poets, and Philosophers dd 1.245; there was no Heretick of whose Doctrine and Arguments he was ignorant, he had an exquisite knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; he retained an infinite number of things, which the Disciples of the Apostles had taught by word of mouth: Lastly, he was exceeding well versed in History and in the Discipline of the Church, so that nothing can be more literally true, than what is attested of him by Ter••dlian, Irenaeus ••••••niu•• Doctrinarum Cariosissimus explorator. Moreover his Learning was accompanied with a great deal of Prudence, Humility, Efficacy and Charity, and it may be justly affirmed, that he wanted nothing that was necessary for the Qualification of a good Christian, an Accomplished Bishop, and an able Ecclesiastical Writer. However, the Learned Photius had reason to take notice of one defect, which is common to him, with many other ancient Authors; that is, That he weakens and obscures (if we may so term it) the most certain Truths of Religion, by Arguments that are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very solid ee 1.246. It were easie to produce some Instances of this defect, but it seems to me to be more expedient to leave them to the Judgment of the Readers of his Works.

Erasmus first published the ancient Version of the Five Books of S. Irenaeus, which was at first Printed at Basil, in the Year 1526. A Second Edition was likewise set forth at the same place by Fro∣benius in 1528. afterwards in 1533, 1545, 1548, 1554, 1560, in Folio, and in 1571. at Paris in 1528, and 1563. in Octavo by Petit, in a very fair Character, and by the same Printer in 1567, again in

Octavo. These Editions were followed by those of Gallasius Minister of Geneva, in the Year 1570.

Lastly, Feuardentius a Professor of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, a Learned Man in his time undertook this Work, and Printed at Paris by Nivellae, in 1575 and 1576, the Five Books of S. Ire∣naeus, Revised and Corrected in many places, from an ancient Manuscript, and Augmented with Five entire Chapters, which were found in his Manuscript at the end of the Fifth Book. He has ad∣ded at the end of every Chapter several Notes, which he judged to be necessary for the better under∣standing of this Author; they are for the most part useful and Learned, but there are some which exceed the due Limits, that a Commentator should prescribe to himself, whose Design ought not to be, to make Ostentation of his Learning, or to Treat of matters of Controversie, but barely to ex∣plain the Sense of his Author. The second Edition of Feu••rdentius, Printed at Colen in the Year 1596, and afterwards in 1630, and at Paris in 1639. is better than the former, because it contains the Greek passages of S. Irenaeus, which are extant in the Works of S. Epiphanius, and some other ancient Writers. To these may be added, those that are Collected by Halloixius from the Writings of S. Jo∣annes Damascenus, in a Manuscript of the Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld. I am of Opinion, that it would be useless to make a new Edition of the Works of S. Irenaeus, at least until the Greek Text shall happen to be found; for to Compose one from the Version, that we now have in our Possession (as Halloixius proposes) would be a Business scarce of any manner of use.

Victor, Polycrates, Theophilus of Cesarea, and Bachillus of Corinth.

ST. Jerome places Victor amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers, because he wrote some little Pieces about the day of the Festival of Easter, which he believed ought not to be celebrated upon any * 1.247 other day but a Sunday. Eusebius mentions but one Roman Synod published in the Name of Victor.

Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus wrote a Letter against the Opinion of Victor, wherein he pretended that we ought to celebrate this Festival upon the 14th day after the appearance of the Moon in March, upon what day of the Week soever it fell. Eusebius cites part of this Letter written in the name of Polycrates, in the 24th Chapter of the Fifth Book of his History, wherein he asserts, that St. Polycarp, and several other Disciples of the Apostles celebrated the Feast of Easter on the same day, as was generally observed in Asia, that is to say, the Fourteenth day after the appearance of the Moon in March upon what day soever it happened. This difference, as we have already observed, raised some divisions amongst the Churches, and exercised the Pens of the most Learned Bishops. The Bishops of Palestine, Narcissus of Jerusalem, Theophilus of Cesarea, Cassris of Tyre, and Clarus of Prolomials, wrote a Letter in the name of the Council, wherein, after they had proved that they derived this custom from the Apostles, they gave Orders to have their Letter solemnly published, and declared, that they celebrated Easter after the same manner as the Church of Alexandria did. Bachyilus Bi∣shop of Corinth wrote also a Letter in the name of the Bishops of Achaid upon the same Subject, and in Eusebius's time the Letters of the Bishops of Pontus of the Province of Osroene were extant. But all these Books are lost, and we have nothing that is ancient upon this Subject, except the Fragments of a Let∣ter of St. Irenaeus, and of that of Polycrates cited by Eusebius, lib. 5. c. 4. All these Letters were writ towards the end of the Reign of Commodus, or the beginning of that of Severus. There goes indeed under the name of Prolycrates, a Book Entituled, The Passion of Blessed Timothy, mentioned by Sigebert, and published by Stapulensis, but 'tis a supposititious Work, and never mentioned by the Ancients.

Several Writers, of whom nothing remains, and who were little known amongst the Ancients.

THERE lived at this time several Writers, whose Works were extant in Eusebius's time, who mentions these that follow, lib. 5. cap. 27. Heraclitus upon St. Paul; Some Books of * 1.248 Maximus upon that common Question among the Hereticks, From whence proceeds Evil; and About the Creation of Matter; The Commentaries of Appion, and of Candidus upon the Hexa∣meron; Sextus's Book concerning the Resurrection; A Treatise of one Arabianus, and the Writings of several others, whose time, says Eusebius, we are not able to find out, there being no Traces or Signs of it; and lastly, the Discourses of several Authors, whose Names we don't so much as know, who, though they were Oxthodox, and of the Church, as appears by their Explication of the Scriptures, yet they were for the most part unknown, and without reputation, because their Books carried not the Names of their respective Authors. To these we must add a certain Person named Judas, who Composed a Dissertation upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel, wherein he has composed a Chronology that reaches down to the Tenth year of the Emperor Severus, and would persuade the World, that Anti-Christ was then at hand. So much had the persecution, raised against the Christians at that time, troubled the Church.

SERAPION of ANTIOCH.

SErapion the Eighth Bishop of Antioch was advanced to this Dignity in the Tenth year of the Emperor Commodus, in the year of our Lord 191. He wrote a Letter to Caricus and Pontius * 1.249 against the Sect of the Montanists, a Fragment whereof Eusebius has cited, wherein he oppo∣ses the Authority of Apollinarius Bishop of Hierapolis, and the a 1.250 Subscriptions of two Bi∣shops of Thrace to the Montanists. There was also in the time of Eusebius another Letter of his addressed to Domninus, who of a Christian turned Jew, to reduce him from his Apostacy, and a Book concerning the Gospel falsely attributed to St. Peter. Eusebius cites a Fragment of this Book, by which it appears, that the subject and occasion which induced Serapion to write it, was a Contest that arose in the Church of Rhossus in Cilicia about the truth of that Gospel, that Serapion happening to be there, permitted them to read it, but that afterwards being convinced, that those Persons who defended it, were secret Hereticks, and that Marcion, who was the principal Asserter of it, received it from some Hereticks named the Doc••t••, (who believed that Jesus Christ did not really suffer, but only in appearance) he wrote this Letter to them, till he could go to see them himself, to acquaint them with the falsity and errors of that Gospel.

St. Jerome takes notice, that in his time there were some short Epistles of the same Author, that were conformable to his austere rigid way of living; but they are wholly lost. This Bishop governed the Church of Antioch till the first year of the Emperor Caracalla, and the year of our Lord 203. Antoninus succeeded him, and was the Ninth Bishop of Antioch after the Apostles.

RHODON.

RHodon, though he was of Asia, studied at Rome, and had Tatian for his Master. He wrote many Books, and amongst the rest a Treatise against the Heresie of Marcion, dedicated to one Callistion. He likewise wrote a Piece upon the Hexaëmeron. St. Jerome attributes * 1.251 to him a Book against the Montanists, a Fragment of which, as he supposes, Euse∣bius has cited. But since Eusebius says nothing of its being written by Rhodon, and since it is certainly of a later date, we may be sure that it cannot be his. So that we have nothing of Rhodon's left, save only a passage or two cited by Eusebius, taken out of his Book against the Heresie of Marcion, wherein he observes, that this Heresie in his time was divided into several Sects; that one Apelles acknowledged but one Principle, but that the rejected the Prophecies; that some others, as Potitus and Basilicus acknowledged two, and others introduced three Natures. He also tells us, that he had a Conference with Apelles, and that he himself being convinced of several Errors in their Conference, said, That we are not obliged to examine what we believe, and that all those who place their hope in Jesus Christ crucified, would be saved; that the question about the Nature of God was exceeding obscure; that he in truth believed there was but one Principle, but that he was not assu∣red of it, and that the Prophecies were contrary one to another. Lastly, Eusebius adds, that Rhodon says in this Book, that he was Tatian's Disciple at Rome; that Tatian had written a Book concerning the most difficult questions of Scripture, promising to explain them, but that having never done it, he himself endeavoured to perform it. And this is all we know of this Author; he flourished under the Emperors Commodus and Severus.

PANTAENUS.

PAntaenus, a Stoick Philosopher a 1.252, born in Sicily, about the beginning of the Reign of the Em∣peror Commodus b 1.253, presided over the celebrated School of Alexandria, where from the time of S. Mark the founder of that Church, they had always a Divine that was eminent for * 1.254 his Learning and Piety, to explain the Holy Scriptures, and to instrust them in Human Learning.

He was obliged for a time to leave this Employment to undertake another far more excellent. For the Indians having sent to the Bishop of Alexandria to furnish them with a Divine to instruct them in the Christian Religion, Demetrius sent Pantaenus thither, who undertook this Mission with Joy, and behaved himself very worthily in it. 'Tis reported, that he found that the Indians had al∣ready some Tincture of the Christian Religion, which had been infused by St. Bartholomew the Apo∣stle, and that he met with the Gospel of S. Matthew amongst them written in Hebrew c 1.255, which that Apostle had left there.

After Pantaenus was returned to Alexandria, he re-assumed the Government of the School of that City, which in his absence he in all probability had committed to the care of his Disciple S. Clemment a Presbyter of Alexandria. He continued to explain the Holy Scripture publickly under the Reign of Severus, and Antoninus Caracalla, and as S. Jerome tells us, was more serviceable to the Church by his Discourses, than by his Writings. Nevertheless he published some Commen∣taries upon the Bible, where he has discovered, as Eusebius says, the Treasures of the Scripture. We may judge after what manner he explained the Sacred Text, by the like performance of St. Cle∣ment of Alexandria, Origen, and the rest that were brought up in that School. They abound in Al∣legories, they find mysteries and instructions in every thing, and scarce ever follow the literal sence, and fill their Annotations generally with a great deal of Learning. A Man ought to have abundance of Wit and Eloquence to keep up this way of writing Commentaries, and to render it advantageous and entertaining to the People, otherwise it will degenerate and grow flat and tedious. The Commenta∣ries of Pantaenus are all lost. We only know, that he was the Author of that Rule, which has been ever since followed by all the Interpreters of Prophecies; that the Prophets often express themselves in indefinite terms, and that they make use of the present time, instead of the past and future. Theo∣dotus has related this Opinion of Pantaenus, but he speaks of it, as if he had rather said it than writ it.

S. CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA.

SAint Clement a 1.256, a Presbyter of Alexandria, and Disciple of Pantaenus b 1.257, was after him, or rather at the same time with him, Master of the School at Alexandria, and Catechist of the * 1.258 Catechumens c 1.259, belonging to the Church of that City. He flourished under the Emperors Severus, and Antoninus Caracalla, and it plainly appears, that he lived till the Reign of He∣liogabalus, or Alexander Severus, that is, till about the Year Two hundred and twenty from the Birth of Christ d 1.260. As he was endowed with extraordinary Learning, and a singular Talent in Writing, so he Composed several considerable Works, which discover great Industry and Study. This is plain by the Catalogue which is left us of them, by Eusebius and S. Jerom.

The Eight Books of Stromata; Entituled the Commentaries, or Stromata of Titus Flavius Clemens, concern∣ing true knowledge; Eight Books of Hypotyposes, or Instructions, an Exhortation to the Gentiles, quoted in the Seventh Book of the Stromata; Three Books commonly called the Pedagogue; and a

Book Entituled, What rich man can be saved; a small Treatise concerning Easter; a Discourse of Fasting, another of Slander; an Exhortation to Patience, written to the Catechumens; a Book Entituled, The Ecclesiastical Rule, against the Jews, Dedicated to Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem.

Besides these Books, S. Clement in his Second Book of the Pedagogue, Chap. 10. tells us, that he wrote a Book of Continence, and in his Third Book, Chap. 8. a Book concerning Marriage. Of these Works we have still Three remaining that are very considerable, The Exhortation to the Gen∣tiles, the Pedagogue, the Eight Books of the Stromata, and the little Tract Entituled, What rich man can be saved, which Johannes Mattheus Cariophylus, Arch-Bishop of Iconium, published from a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, whence Father Combe••is made a new Version which he set forth, together with the Original Greek, in the last Volume of his Supplement to the Bibliotheca Pa∣trum. [It was Printed also at Oxon in Twelves 1683. Doctor Cave says, that it was published formerly under Origen's Name, being Printed by Michael Gheislerus, with Origen's Commentaries upon Jeremiah.]

The Exhortation to the Gentiles, is a Discourse written to convert the Pagans from their Religion, and to perswade them to embrace that of Jesus Christ. In the beginning of it, he shews what Dif∣ference there is between the Design of Jesus Christ, and that of Orpheus, and those ancient Musicians, who were the first Authors of Idolatry, by telling us that these drew in Men by their Singing, and the sweetness of their Musick, to render them miserable Slaves to Idols, and to make them like the very Beasts, and Stocks and Stones which they adored; whereas Jesus Christ, who from all Eternity was the WORD of God, always had a Compassionate tenderness for Men, and at last took their Nature upon him, to free them from the Slavery of Daemons; to open the Eyes of those that were blind, and the Ears of those that were deaf; to guide their Paths in the way of Justice; to deliver them from Death and Hell; and to bestow on them everlasting Life; to put them in a Capacity of leading a Heavenly Life here upon Earth; and Lastly, that God made himself Man, to teach Man to become like unto God. Having thus represented the Advantages of the Christian Religion, he exhorts them in a few words, to embrace Vertue, Justice, Temperance, and to imitate the Example of Jesus Christ, that so they may become worthy of eternal Salvation. He afterwards shews the Falshood of the Pagan Religion: First, by discovering the Infamy, and Vanity of their Mysteries, which he enumerates and describes exactly. Secondly, by shewing the Original of Idolatry, and after what manner Men first invented those false Deities.

Some, says he, contemplating the Stars, and admiring their Courses, deifyed them, so the Indians adored the Sun, the Phrygians the Moon, and others gathering with Pleasure the Fruits that grow out of the Earth, made a Deity of Corn, which they call Ceres, and another of the Vine, and that they call Bacchus. Others dreading Pu∣nishments, Afflictions, Miseries and Calamities, invented particular Deities, who were either the In∣struments of sending them upon mankind, or else of diverting them from Men: some Philosophers following the Fancy of the Poets, made Deities of the Passions, such as Love, Hope, and Joy, and others placed the Vertues in the Rank of Gods, representing them by external Shapes; Hesiod and Homer in their Accounts of the Generation of the Gods, and Descriptions of their Actions have given Rise to a new sort of Theology. Lastly, the common People have made Gods of those, from whom they have received any considerable Benefit.

After having thus discovered the Original of Idolatry, he shews the Folly of it, by proving that the Principal Gods, as Jupiter, Mars, Vulcan, Aesculapius, &c. were Men like others, and that we know their Country, their manner of Living and Employments, and that we may see their Sepulchres to this Day: That the Poets have set down their Loves, their Wounds, and their Crimes: That the wisest of the Heathens have owned the Falshood of these Deities: That the several Religions of the Pagans destroy one another: That it is a strange kind of Blindness, to adore Statues as real Deities. Then he goes on to the principal Design of his Work, which is to exhort men to adore the true God, and to embrace the Religion of Jesus Christ: he shews that the wisest of the Philosophers, as Plato, Cleanthes, Pythagoras, and Xenophon, have con∣fest that there was but One true God; and that even the most ancient Poets, as Aratus, Hesiod, Eu∣ripides and Orpheus, have been obliged to acknowledge the same; and that the Sibyls, the Prophets, and the Books of Scriptures teach only the Worship of One God. Afterwards he is very earnest to persuade Men to embrace the Christian Religion, in Consideration of the great Advantages that it carries along with it, towards the Attainment of eternal Salvation, which they cannot otherwise hope for, and for preserving themselves from eternal Torments, which they cannot possibly avoid, but by believing in Jesus Christ, and by living conformably to his Laws.

If you were permitted, says he, to purchase eternal Salvation, what would you not give for it? And now you may obtain it by Faith and Charity. There is nothing can hinder you from acquiring it, neither Poverty, nor Misery, nor Old Age, nor any other State of Life: Believe therefore, in One God who is God and Man, and re∣ceive eternal Salvation for a Recompence Seek God, and you shall live for ever.

Thus he con∣cludes with a long Exhortation, wherein he most earnestly presses Men to quit their Idolatry and Vices, and to live and believe as the Christians do.

The Second Book Entituled the Pedagogue, is a Discourse entirely of Morality. It is divided into three Books. In the first he shews, what it is to be a Pedagogue, that is to say, a Conductor, Pa∣stor, * 1.261 or Director of Men: He proves that this Quality chiefly and properly belongs only to the WORD Incarnate. He says that it is the part of the Pedagogue to regulate the Manners, conduct * 1.262 the Actions, and cure the Passions. That he preserves Men from Sins, and heals them when they have been already Guilty. That the WORD performs these Functions by forgiving our Sins, as he is God, and instructing Us as he is Man, with great Sweetness and Charity. That he equally informs

Men and Women, the Learned and the Ignorant, because all Men stand in need of Instruction, be∣ing all Children in one Sense. Yet however, that we must not think that the Doctrine of the Chri∣stians is Childish and Contemptible: But that on the contrary, the Quality of Children, which they receive in Baptism, renders them perfect in the knowledge of Divine Things, by delivering them from Sins by Grace, and inlightning them by the Illumination of Faith: And that so we are at the same time both Children and perfect Men, and that the Milk wherewith we are nourished, being * 1.263 both the Word and the Will of God, is a very Solid and Substantial Nourishment. That the WORD guided the Jews in the Old Testament by Fear; but that after it was Incarnate, it has changed this Fear into Love. That Reproaches, Afflictions, and Punishments, which the WORD makes * 1.264 use of to chastise Men, are not Signs of his bearing any hatred towards them, but Effects of his Ju∣stice, and of the Care which he takes to Correct them: That it is the same God, the Creator of the World, who is both Good and Just, that punishes and shews Mercy: That he is good upon his own * 1.265 Account, and just as to Men: That Reproofs and Chastisements are for their Good; that there are two kinds of Fear, the Fear which Children have of their Father, or Subjects of their King, and the Fear which Slaves have of their Master. That both these Sorts of Fear are profitable to Men, but that the First is by much the most perfect. That the WORD inclines Men to good by its Exhortati∣ons, and prevents them from Sinning, by its Threatnings: That he performed the Function of a * 1.266 Pedagogue by Moses and the Prophets, and that he is at last come himself to give Men suitable Re∣medies to their several Miseries, and to Conduct them according to the Dictates of right Reason. * 1.267 That the whole Life of a Christian is a continued Series of Actions, conformable to Reason, and that Sin is produced by the going out of that way.

In the 2d. and 3d. Book of the Pedagogue, S. Clement descends to the Recapitulation of humane Actions, and gives Rules for Temperance and Christian Modesty. In the former of these he shews, * 1.268 that the End and Design of Eating, ought not to be Pleasure but Necessity, and that therefore we must avoid Excess both in the Quantity, and the Quality of our Meat. That Wine is not to be Drunk but with great Moderation, and that young Persons particularly ought wholly to abstain from it. He finds great Fault with Luxury in Houshold-stuff and Moveables. He is of Opinion, that Vocal and Instrumental Musick, ought to be banished from the Christian Festivals, and that we should only celebrate therein the Praises of God. He is against immoderate Laughter, and uttering such Words as are unseemly. He requires that exact Modesty be observed in the Countenance, and in Discourse; he reprehends those who put Crowns and Garlands upon their Heads, and who per∣fumed themselves with Balm. He allows but little Sleep, and that in such Beds, that are neither too * 1.269 stately nor too delicate. That it is not lawful to Marry but with a Design of begetting Children; That we should not make use of Clothes, but for the sake of Decency. He declaims against Luxury of Apparel, against precious Stones, against Fantastical Dresses in Men or Women, and against publick Baths. He describes and enveighs against all these things better than ever Juvenal, or any of the an∣cient Satyrists had done before him. He intermixes his Satyr with several Curious Instructions, and descends to particulars like a Casuist.

He passes in the next Place to the Precepts of Vertue opposite to the Vices he has been reprehend∣ing: * 1.270 He shews, that there is none but the Christian, who is truly rich. That he ought to live in an entire Frugality. That he must not make use of any Exercises, and Pleasures, no farther than is ab∣solutely necessary for his Health. He adds moreover divers Instructions, more particularly suited to the Women, to perswade them to carry themselves always Civilly and Modestly, and more especi∣ally in Churches. Lastly, he makes a Collection of several Places of Scripture, which relate to Mo∣rality, and the Conduct of our Life, and concludes by exhorting Men to hearken unto, and to obey the Precepts of Jesus Christ, their Supreme and Sovereign Pedagogue, to whom he Addresses a Prayer, praising him with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, and returning him Thanks for making him a Member of his Church. These Books are very profitable for those that study Morality, and if the Casuists of our Times had perused and considered them well, they had not faln into that damnable Remissness, wherein they have suffered themselves to be overtaken: They might also be very useful to all Christians, and I much wonder that no Person has undertaken to translate them in this Age, wherein several Pious and Learned Men, have employed their Time and Labour in rendring intelligi∣ble to all People the most excellent Writings of the Fathers, by translating them into our Language with a Clearness of Expression, and Exactness of Style not to be imitated. But if any would un∣dertake the Translation of the Pedagogue, he must leave out several Passages, that are not fitting to be read by every Body, and accommodate some other places to the Manners and Customs of our Times.

The Books Entituled Stromata e 1.271 are so called, because they contain several choice Thoughts f 1.272 Col∣lected from divers Places, and joyned together, so as to make a Variety somewhat like that in Turky-work

C••rpets. Let us see how S. Clement speaks of his own Work, in the Beginning of his Fourth Book.

These Books, says he, are stored with Varieties, as their Name imports; we here pass on continually from one thing to another, and we often mention things that are foreign to our Subject.

He af∣terwards compares this Work to a Meadow, a Tract of Land, or a Garden, wherein one may find all sorts of Herbs, Flowers and Fruits, of which we may gather what we please.

But not, as he says in another place, to those beautiful Gardens, where the Trees and Plants are ranged only to please the Sight; but rather to a thick and shady Mountain, where the Cypresses, the Linden-Trees, the Lawrels, the Ivy, the Apple-Trees, the Olives, the Figg-Trees, and other kind of Trees both fruitful and barren, are mixt together. He says that he has observed this Method designedly, that so he might not clearly discover our Mysteries to th••se who were not yet initiated, and yet so as others might comprehend them, and might thence make their advantage; as, says he, the Fruit-Trees of this Mountain, whereof we but just now spake, are concealed from those who would rifle them, whereas the Labourer who understands them, may pluck them up, and make a Garden, or a pleasant Forest. Do not therefore expect, says he, in these Books, either Order or Politeness; since our Design was to conceal, and, if I may so say, to embroyl Things, that so none but the In∣telligent, and those who will take the Pains to inform themselves, may be able to comprehend them:

So that as S. Clement has not observed any Method in these Books, but intermixed several Notions all along of Philosophy, and Religion, it is a difficult matter to make such an Abridgment of them, as we have given of the Books of the Pedagogue. However we shall endeavour to give an Account of the principal Matters, which he there Discourses of.

In the First Bork, after having shewn how advantageous it is, for Persons of Ability to Compose Books, he proposes the Subject of his, saying that they shall contain the principal Verities of Reli∣gion mixt, or rather concealed under the Maxims of Philosophy. Thence he takes occasion to re∣fute those who find fault with Philosophy; to shew the Profit and Advantage of it; to Discourse of the use that may be made of it: and he concludes by shewing that the Philosophy of the He∣brews is the most ancient of all, justifying this Truth by a most curious and exact Chronology.

In the Second Book he ••reats of Faith, and its Effects, which are Repentance, Hope and Fear; he proves that Faith is necessary; that it is not in us by Nature, but by Will; that it is God's Gift, but so as to depend upon our own Free-will; that true Repentance consists in doing no more that which we are troubled for having done already; that there are two kinds of it, the First is that of those, who turned to the true Faith, to efface the Sins they committed, whilst they were Heathens; the Second is that of those, who have faln after their Conversion, but yet have an opportunity of obtaining Forgiveness, provided they are heartily sorry for their Sin; but that those who often fa••l into the same Sin, and by that means make a Circle of Repenting and Sinning, are like to those who have no Faith: And that it is only a seeming, and no true Repentance, in those who ask Pardon for those very Sins which they never intend to reform. Upon occasion of Repentance he Discourses of Sin. He says that Men commit it freely, and that they are purified from it by Faith and Cha∣rity. That the Fear of God is very profitable for us, that it instructs us, that it causes us to avoid Sin, and that it incites us to Love. He commends Charity, Temperance and Hospitality. He con∣demns those that p•…•…ge themselves in sensual Pleasures: And proposes to them the Example of the Martyrs who suffered Fire, Torments, and Death it self for the defence of Justice and Truth. After∣wards he Discourses of Marriage, and defines it to be a lawful Conjunction between a Man and a Woman, for the Propagation of Children. He approves of it, and shews its advantages, telling us that it is never lawful to leave the Woman, in order to Marry another, upon any Pretence whatever.

He continues in the Third Book, to speak against the Incontinence of the Nicolaitans, Carpocrati∣ans, Valentinians, and several other Hereticks, and he defends Marriage against the Marcionites, against Tatian, and the other Hereticks that blamed it, tho' he prefers Virginity before it as a greater good; Provided, says he, that it be kept meerly for the Love of God, and for the observing his Commands. He maintains that Marriage is indissoluble, he does not entirely condemn Second Marriages, but blames them. He occasionally tells a Story of Nicholas one of the Seven first Deacons, who is supposed to be the Author of the Nicolaitans, who having a handsome Wife, and being accused of Jealousie, brought her, as they say, before the Apostles, and gave her leave to Marry whom ••he pleased of them. But he excuses Nicholas, and says, that those who boast of being his Disciples have put a wrong Construction upon this Action, as well as upon his Words: That he was informed, that he never had any Commerce with any other Woman, but his Wife: That his Daughters remained Virgins, and his Son was very Cha••t. He says that the Apostles S. Peter, and S. Philip were Married, and that they had Children: That even S. Philip married his Daughters, and he adds also, that S. Paul had a Wife, wherein he is mistaken.

[Tho' it is uncertain whether S. Paul was ever Married, yet it is a rash thing to say positively he was not. S. Clement alledges a Tradition in this Matter, which might easily be conveyed entire down to his time. It is plain, that the true Yoke-fellow, Philip. 4. 3. was a Woman; which others of the An∣tients understood of his Wife, besides S. Clement. His Expostulating with the Corinthians, and asserting that he had a Power to lead about a Sister, or a Wife as well as S. Peter or any of the Apostles, may as well prove, that S. Paul justified his own Practice, as that he thought the thing simply lawful: especially since he is there making a Defence for himself. The Question however is very far from be∣ing certain in the Negative, and therefore at least ought to be left undetermined.]

In the Fourth Book he treats of Martyrdom, and Christian Perfection. He shews the Excellency of Martyrdom, and exhorts Christians to undergo it, confuting the Hereticks, who held that Mar∣tyrdom

was no Vertuous Action: He makes the perfection of Christianity, to consist in the Love of God and our Neighbour. He would have us love Sinners, and yet detest their Sin; that we should do good out of a principle of Love and not for Fear.

For that Man, says he, that abstains from Evil only out of a slavish Fear, is not good voluntarily, but for Fear-sake; and he who would not have abstained but in Consideration of the Recompence, cannot be said to be just with a good Heart. For in the one 'tis Fear, and in the other the hope of a Reward, which renders them Just, or rather which makes them appear so to the Eyes of the World.

He says that God inflicts Pu∣nishments upon Men for Three Reasons. First, that the Man whom he Chastises may become better. Secondly, that those who are to be saved, may take warning by these Examples. Thirdly, lest he should be despised by Men, if he did not avenge Affronts and Injuries done to himself.

In the Fifth Book, after having shewn that the way of instructing by Allegories and Symbols was very ancient, not only among the Jews, but also among the Philosophers, he proves that the Greeks took the greatest part of the Truths, which are in their Books, from the Barbarians, and principally from the Hebrews. This Book is full of Citations from the Poets, and the heathen Phi∣losophers.

In the Sixth Book, he speaks again advantageously of Philosophy. Afterwards he begins to draw a Character of the True Gnostick, that is to say, to give the Idea of a Christian, that is perfectly Good and Wise. These are the principal strokes of his Picture. The True Gnostick has the Com∣mand over his Passions. He is exactly Temperate, and allows his Body no more than what is ne∣cessary. He loves God above all Things, and the Creatures for Gods-sake, and the Relation they bear to him, and nothing is able to separate him from this Love. He bears with Patience all unfortu∣nate Accidents. He makes it his Business to know all things which relate to God, without neglect∣ing humane Learning. His Discourses are regular and to the purpose, full of Sweetness and Charity. He is never overcome with Anger. He prays continually by Charity, that unites him to God; First, begging of him the Remission of his Sins; and then the Grace not to sin any more, but to do Good. Afterwards S. Clement enlarges upon the Source or Spring, from whence this Gnostick de∣rives this true Knowledge, and compleat Science. He says that it is the Holy Scripture, the Law and the Prophets, and in particular the Decalogue which he briefly explains, and Lastly, the Doctrine of Jesus Christ foretold by the Prophets, preached throughout the World, and received notwithstan∣ding all the Contradiction of Kings, and the great Men of this World, who opposed it with all their Might.

In the Seventh Book, he goes on to describe the Vertues of his Gnostick; he says that he employs himself entirely in honouring God, in loving him, in understanding, hearing and imitating his WORD, which was made Man for our Salvation; that he does it not only upon certain days, but during the whole Course of his Life; that the Sacrifices by which he Honours him, are the Prayers and the Praises which he offers up at all times and in all Places; that he is Gentle, Courteous, Affable, Patient, Charitable, Sincere, Faithful and Temperate; that he despises the good things of this World, and that he is ready to suffer every thing for Jesus Christ; that he does nothing either out of Ostentation, or Fear, or the Desire of being rewarded, but out of pure Love to the Goodness and Justice of God: Lastly, that he is entirely Holy and Divine. Afterwards S. Clement Answers several Objections of the Greeks and Jews, who affirmed that the multiplicity of Heresies ought to hinder Men from the embracing the Religion of Jesus Christ. To which he Answers, that this multitude of Sects is like∣wise to be found among the Heathens, and the Jews; that it was foretold by Jesus Christ, that such a thing should happen among the Christians. That it ought not to make us forsake the Truth, but rather on the contrary to seek after it, with the greater Care and Diligence. That there is an infalli∣ble Rule to distinguish Truth from Falshood; that this Rule is the Holy Scripture, which being an incontestable Principle serves for a Proof of whatever we say. That it must be Confessed, that the He∣reticks make use of it as well as the Catholicks. But then first they do not make use of all the Sa∣cred Books. Secondly, those which they do use are corrupted. Thirdly, they chiefly urge ambi∣guous Passages, which they explain according to their own Fancy, by departing from the true Sense, and keeping only to Terms. Hence he takes occasion to condemn in general all Hereticks, who re∣jecting the Tradition of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, and forsaking the Faith of the Church, have made themselves the Authors of particular Sects, by inventing new Doctrines, and corrupting the Truth. He says, that there is but only One Catholick Church, which is more ancient than all the Assemblies of the Hereticks, that it was founded by Jesus Christ, who dyed under Tiberius, and esta∣blished it in the World by the Apostles, before the end of Nero's Region. Whereas there was hardly so much as one Heresie older than Adrian's Time, and that they all bore the Name of their Author, or that of the Places and Countries where they first appeared, or from the Doctrine they taught, or the things which they honoured, which sufficiently discovers their Falshood and Novelty. He concludes by making the Description of these Books of the Stromata, and by promising to begin an∣other Subject in the following Book.

The Last Book in our Editions, is a Collection of Logical Principles, which contains nothing that regards the Christian Religion, or that is worth giving an Account of. Photius observes, that in his Time there were some Editions, where this last Book was Entituled; What rich Man can be saved: And that it began with these Words. Those who make pieces of Oratory. But Eusebius distinguishes that Book from the Stromata.

S. Clement of Alexandria, does not start at all from the Doctrine of the Church in those Works of his, whereof we have already given the Abridgment. He does not only mention Three Divine

Persons, but he invokes them as One only God g 1.273. Besides he uses the Name of the most Holy Trinity. He says that the WORD, which was from the beginning in God, which is God, and equal to God, by which he created the World, and instructed all Men, did at last become Man to save us by his Doctrine, by his Example, and by his Death. It is true, in another Place he says, that the Nature of the Son is the most Perfect, the most Excellent, and that which approaches nearest to Al∣mighty God, words which would seem to imply as if he believed, that the Nature of the WORD was different from that of the Father: But we know well enough, that the Ancients had not yet made so exact a Distinction between the Terms Nature, and Person, and that they often took one for the other. And indeed his way of Discoursing of the Excellency of the WORD, in this and other Places, sufficiently declares that he did not believe, that he was of a different Nature, taking the word Nature in the same Sense as we at present do. For he says that the WORD is God, that it is without Beginning, that he is equal to the Father, that he is in the Father, that he created all Things, &c. Expressions which clearly discover what his Opinion was concerning the Divinity of the WORD. He seems however to follow the way of speaking of some of the Ancients, in saying * 1.274 that the WORD is Visible, that he may be known, and that it is by him that we know the invi∣sible Father, of whom he is the Image; but it is an easie matter to Accommodate these Expres∣sions to the Doctrines of the Church, as we have shewn in our Critical Remarks upon several Authors already. He says, that the Blessed Mary remained a Virgin after she brought forth. He holds that the * 1.275 Daemons sinned through Incontinency. He acknowledges Adam's Fall, and the Punishment of his Sin, which all Men have incurred. But he seems not well to have understood the Nature of Origi∣nal Sin. 'Tis true, that in the passage commonly alledged from him against Original Sin, he contra∣dicts the Opinion of those who affirmed, that the Generation was Corrupted. But he speaks after such a manner as would make us think, that he did not believe Original Sin, or at least, that he ne∣ver considered it. Let them tell us, says he, how an Infant that is but just born has prevaricated, and how he who has already done nothing, could fall under Adam's Curse, &c. He often exhorts Men to do good by the hopes of Eternal Happiness, and disswades them from Evil, by the Fear of Everla∣sting Punishments, without speaking at all of the Opinion of the Millenaries. He holds, that without Faith in Jesus Christ none can be saved: But he says, that Jesus Christ, and the Apostles preached the Gospel in the Limbi to just Persons, as well Gentiles as Jews, that they might obtain this Faith, wherein they were before deficient. He ascribes much to Free-Will, he believes that our Sal∣vation, and Faith which is the beginning thereof depends upon our selves, though not without the Assistance of Divine Grace h 1.276. He speaks nobly of the Necessity and Efficacy of Baptism.

Bap∣tism, * 1.277 says he, is called Grace, Illumination, Perfection, Washing, by which Name it is called, be∣cause it cleanses us from our Sins; it is called Grace because it remits the Punishment due for our Sins; Illumination because it enlightens us with the Illumination of Faith; Perfection because it makes us perfect. And afterwards, pag. 95. These Bonds of Sin are immediately broken by the Faith of Man, and the Grace of God; Sins are remitted by this admirable Remedy of Baptism, and we immediately cease to be Sinners; from being Blind as we were before, we become clear-sighted, for what is taught to the Catechumens is purely Instruction to guide them to that Faith, which is thus internally conveyed by the Holy Spirit.

We have given an account of the difference that he makes between the Remission of Sins committed after Baptism, and that which is obtained by Baptism. We have shewed that he allowed but one Repentance after Baptism, and that he rejects the Repen∣tances of those Persons who often relapse into the very same Sins, as things of no value; that he ap∣proves of Marriage, and believes it indissoluble; that he blames Polygamy, and even second Mar∣riages. He speaks but little of the Eucharist, and what he says of it is very obscure, because he en∣deavours to conceal this Mystery from those who were not Baptised. But he declares expresly in the Second Book of the Pedagogue, Chap. 2. that the Bread and Wine are the Matter of it, and con∣dems the Hereticks who used any thing else besides Bread, and Wine mingled with Water. He ob∣serves that in several Churches, after the Eucharist was distributed, it was left to the liberty of each * 1.278 of the Faithful, to take a part of it. He often cites Apocryphal Books, as the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Book of Hermas; yet in the mean time he only allows the Four Gospels to be Canonical. He admits of the Authority of Tradition, and that of the Church. These are the Opi∣nions

of S. Clement upon the Principal Articles of our Faith, which are conformable to the Do∣ctrine of the Church, in all the main Points, and different only in some Things of lesser Consequence.

But this cannot be said concerning his Work of Institutions, which according to the Testimony of Photius contained several Errors, even contrary to what he had taught in his other Works. Let us see what this Learned Critick says of the Matter. The Hypotiposes, says he, were written upon some Pas∣sages of the Old and New Testament, which he explains and interprets briefly; but though he has in seve∣ral places very Orthodox and true Notions, yet in others he has some that are very Erroneous and Fabulous; For he says that Matter is Eternal, and he feigns Eternal Idea's produced by the Decrees of God; he places the Sun in the number of Created Beings; he holds the Metempsychosis; he pretends that there were se∣veral Worlds before Adam; he fancies Eve to be produced from Adam after an infamous manner, and different from that which is set down in the Scripture; he imagines, that the Angels having had to do with Women, begat Children of them; he thinks that the WORD was not really and truly Incarnate, but only in Appearance; he feigns two WORDS of GOD, the one Superior and the other Inferior, this last was that which appeared unto Men; he adds, that this WORD is not of the same nature with the WORD of GOD, that it was not the WORD of the Father that was incarnate, but a certain Vertue and Power of GOD proceeding from the WORD, which being a Spirit entred into the Souls of Men. He endeavours to prove these Opinions by Scripture. In a word, these Eight Books are full of such sort of Errors and Blasphemies; whether it be the Author of this Book that has written them, or whether it be any other who puts them out under his name. The intent and design of the whole Work appears to be an Explication of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, the Canonical Epistles, and Ecclesiasticus. The Au∣thor observes that he was the Disciple of Pantaenus.

If this Work was so full of Errors, as there seems no reason at all to doubt after the Testimony of Photius who had seen it, it must needs have been composed by S. Clement, before he was throughly instructed in the Christian Religion, and had altogether quitted the Opinions of Plato; which seems very probable, for we cannot say that he was not the Author of these Books, which are attributed to him by all Antiquity, and there is no likelihood that they were falsified by the Hereticks in so many places. Besides that these are the Opinions of one who would accommodate the Platonick Philoso∣phy to the Christian Religion, or rather of one who was half a Platonist and half a Christian. How∣ever among the Ancients these Books have been had in sufficient esteem and reputation. Eusebius cites several Passages out of them. In the First Book, Chap. 12. of his History he brings one out of the Fifth Book, where it is said that Cephas, Matthias, Barnabas, and Thaddaeus, were of the number of the Seventy Disciples of Jesus Christ. The same Eusebius in the Second Book, Chap. 1. produces a∣nother passage taken out of the Sixth Book, were he says that Peter, James, and John, (though they were preferr'd by Jesus Christ to the other Apostles) did not dispute about Precedency, but chose with one consent St. James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem. And another out of the Seventh Book, where he says, that these Three Apostles had the Spirit of Knowledge, which they communi∣cated to the Seventy Disciples. In the 9th Chapter there is another Passage taken from the Seventh Book, where he says, that James the Brother of John by his Constancy converted his Accuser, and that they were both beheaded for the Faith of Christ. In the 15th Chapter, he says, that S. Clement in his Sixth Book of Institutions affirms, that S. Mark composed his Gospel by the Direction of S. Peter, and that this Apostle approved of it when it was finish'd. Lastly, Eusebius in the Sixth Book 14th Chapter tells us, that S. Clement in his Institutions explains all the Books of the Old and New Te∣stament, not omitting even those of which many Persons doubted, as the Epistles of S. Jude, S. Bar∣nabas, and the Revelation of S. Peter: That he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by S. Paul, and translated by S. Luke: That S. Paul would not put his Name to it, because he was ha∣ted by the Hebrews. He sets down the Order of the Gospels; he says that the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke were first written, that S. Mark composed his at Rome at the Instance of the Faithful, and by S. Peter's Order, and that S. John writ his the last at the desire of his Friends, to explain what was most Spiritual in Jesus Christ, the others having sufficiently spoken of his Body.

The famous Valesius has observed, that we have still a very considerable Greek fragment of this Work at the end of S. Clement, Entituled, An Extract of the Oriental Doctrine of Theodotus. For it contains those very Errors, concerning Christ's Person, which Photius has observed in the Hypotipo∣ses; and the Author says towards the end, that Pantaenus was his Master. It is also likely, that the other fragment which follows, which is a Collection of Words and Expressions of Scripture, is likewise taken out of these Books, for besides that it is found with the Works of S. Clement, it is written after that manner in which Eusebius and Photius acquaints us, that the Work of S. Clement was composed, and it appears that it is the very same Design.

There is also another considerable Fragment of S. Clement taken from his Book, What Rich Man can be saved, in Eusebius, Book 3. Chap. 23. where he tells us a famous Story of S. John. He says that this Apostle coming to a City of Asia, recommended to the Bishop a young Man who seemed to have very good parts: That this Bishop presently took care of him, and having sufficiently instructed him, he baptiz'd him; but afterwards neglecting to look after him as before, this young Man grew lewd, and became the Ring-leader of the Robbers; that S. John returning some years after, demand∣ed of the Bishop the Trust which he had committed to his Charge, and let him know, that he re∣quired this young Man from him. The Bishop telling him that he was utterly lost, and that he was become the Head of the Thieves, this Holy Apostle being extreamly concerned at this unfortunate Accident, immediately took Horse, caused himself to be taken by the Robbers, and to be brought before their Chief, who remembring him, immediately fled; but S. John running after him, made

him acknowledge his fault, promised him to obtain for him Christ's Pardon, and brought him back along with him, and having put him into a Course of Repentance, he did not leave him till he was reconciled to the Church. We have this Book entire in the last Volume of the Supplement of the Bibliotheca Patrum, translated by Gislenius, and the Greek Text published by Cariophylus: 'Tis an ex∣cellent Discourse, wherein S. Clement explains the Words of Jesus Christ to the young Rich Man recorded by S. Mark, Chap. 10. And it shews, that in order to Salvation, 'tis not necessary for any one absolutely to quit his Possessions and Riches, provided he makes a good use of them. Upon occasion of this Question, he discourses of Love towards God, and towards our Neighbour, and of Re∣pentance. By the way he says something of the Advantage there is in having a Director, to repre∣hend us severely for our Faults, and to give us suitable Remedies for our Amendment. And it was to shew the Efficacy of Repentance, that he told this Story of S. John. We find under the name of S. Clement, in the Bibliotheca Patrum, some Explications upon several Passages of the Old Testament, and Commentaries upon the Canonical Epistles. If these Fragments are really his, they must be ta∣ken from his Books of Institutions, which is not very improbable, because they have a near Relation to what Photius says of the Institutions, and besides they have the Genius of S. Clement.

There is no doubt but S. Clement was a Person of Extraordinary Qualifications. S. Jerom makes no scruple of saying that no Man had ever more knowledge than this Father; and it is certain, that of all the Ancients, there is none whose Books are so full of Profane Learning as his i 1.279: He even shews too much of it for a Christian Writer, and we may say that he was more a Philosopher than a Divine, though he was by no means ignorant of our Religion, and perfectly understood the Holy Scriptures. But he is much more Emphatical upon the Moral than upon the Doctrinal Part of Christianity; and he explains almost all the Passages which he cites, after an Allegorical manner in imitation of Philo Judaeus. He writes almost always without Method and Coherence. His Stile is careless; which may be particularly observed in his Stromata. For in his Exhortation to the Gentiles, and his Peda∣gogue, he writes more floridly, as Photius has observed, and he is all along buoyed up with a certain Majestick gravity which is very delightful.

The Works of S. Clement have been Printed in Greek at Florence in the year 1550 for Torrensis, by the Care of Petrus Victorius. They were translated by Gentianus Hervetus, which Translation was Printed at Florence by the same Person in the year 1551; at Paris in 1566, 1572, 1590, 1592, and in 1612; at Basil in 1556, and with S. Irenaeus in 1560, and 1566; at Amsterdam in 1613. Silburgius afterwards took Pains upon this Author, and having collected the Observations and Corrections of se∣veral Learned Persons, caused it to be Printed in Greek by Commelinus in the year 1592, in Folio. Afterwards it was published in Greek and Latin by Heinsius, who revised the Translation, and added some new Observations, and caused it to be Printed in Greek by the same Commelinus in the year 1616. This Edition was followed by those of Paris in the year 1629, and 1621, which is the best of all; That of 1641 is not so Fair and Correct.

Miltiades; The two Apollonii; And two Anony∣mous Authors, who wrote against the Heresies of Mon∣tanus and Artemo.

'TIS not known neither what was the Country, nor the Profession of Miltiades; he wrote a Book against the Montanists, wherein he particularly maintains, That a Prophet ought * 1.280 not to speak in an Ecstasy or Fury a 1.281. Eusebius affirms, that he has left evident Proofs of his Skill, and the Pains which he took in the Study of the Holy Scripture, in those Books which he wrote against the Gentiles and the Jews, each of which was divided into two Volumes. And that besides these Discourses, he wrote an Apology for the Christian Philosophy, Dedicated to the Governors of the Provinces b 1.282. This Author lived under the Emperor Commodus.

There were at the same time two different Authors, both of which were called Apollonius. The false is a Greek Author, who wrote against the Sect of the Montanists, wherein he Confutes their last Prophecies step by step, and Censures the Practice and Manners of those Hereticks. Eusebius gives us a Fragment of it in Book V. Chap. 18. where he describes the Exorbitances of Montanus and his Prophetesses; he accuses them for taking Sums of Money and Presents. He particularly repre∣hends two Persons of this Sect, who boasted of their being Martys. Besides, Eusebius observes, that Apollonius says in this Book, that it was forty years since Montanus invented his Prophecies; that he makes mention of Thraseas, who was a Martyr in his time, and that he mentions a Tradition, that Jesus Christ had given Orders to his Apostles not to go out of Jerusalem for twelve years.

The second Apollonius was of Rome, a Senator of that City, if we may believe S. Jerome c 1.283. He was accused in the time of the Emperor Commodus for being a Christian, and was brought into the Judgment-Hall before Perennis the Praefectus Praetorio. His Accuser was Condemned d 1.284 according to the Law of the Emperor, which punished the Accusers of the Christians with Death, and Apollonius was sent back to justifie himself before the Senate; where he appeared, and made a very Eloquent Oration in Defence of his Religion, tho' notwithstanding that he was condemned to Death, because there was an Ancient Law which ordain'd, That those Christians, who were once judicially accused for their Religion, should not be acquitted if they did not forsake it. S. Jerome says, that he Com∣posed this Oration to Present to the Senate. But Eusebius assures us on the contrary, that he spoke it before them. But whether he wrote it with a design to speak it, or that the Christians had taken care to preserve it, it was extant in Eusebius's time among the ancient Acts of the Sufferings of the Martyrs.

The same Esebius gives us a Fragment of an Anonymous Author against the Heresie of Monta∣nus. This by some is attributed to Apollinarius, and by S. Jerome, sometimes to Rhodon, and some∣times to Apollonius. Tho' it was not written by either of these Authors, but by one more modern, who lived, as we have said, after the Death of Montanus and his Prophetesses. It was divided into five Books. Eusebius relates some Passages taken from the First, Second, and Third. In that which is taken from the first Book, the Author describes the furious Transports of Montanus and his Prophe∣tesses, and those who pretended to Prophecy. In the Passages taken from the second Book, he says, That Montanus and Maximilla killed themselves; that Theodotus likewise threw himself down head-long; and that very Holy Bishops, as Zoticus of Comana, and Julian of Apamia, being willing to Convict the Prophecies of Maximilla of Imposture, were hindred by some who favoured that Sect. He adds, that Maximilla foretold, before she died, Wars and Persecutions, and yet that after her Death both Church and State enjoyed perfect Peace and Tranquility. In the Passage taken from the

third Book, he says, That the Martyrs, of which they boast, cannot justifie themselves, since even the Marcionites likewise have made the same Pretences: But that the Martyrs of the Church do care∣fully avoid Communicating with those of this Sect, as has been practised in the City of Apamia by the Martys named Alexander, and Caius, who were of Eumenia. Moreover in the following Chap∣ter Eusebius relates a Passage taken from the same Book, where he says, That all the Prophets which have been since the time of the New Testament, such as Agabus, Judas, Silas, the Daughters of Phi∣lip, Quadratus, were not agitated by the same Spirit of Prophecy as Montanus and Maximilla, whose False and Lying Prophecies were made in a sudden Heat, accompanied with Lewdness and Impu∣dence, which took its Rise from Ignorance, and ended in Involuntary Folly: But that in the anci∣ent Prophecies, nothing like this was to be found. That since the time of Maximilla and Monta∣nus, there has not been any Person of this Sect, who could boast of being a Prophet, whereas the true Gift of Prophecy ought to be always in the Church.

The other Author, whereof Eusebius gives us a Fragment without naming him, in the fifth Book of his History, Chap. 28. had written a Discourse against the Heresie of Artemo, who believed, that Jesus Christ was only a meer Man. It is related in this Fragment, that those of this Sect affirmed, that till Victor's Days the true Apostolical Doctrine was preserved, but that it was corrupted from the time of Zephirinus.

Which possibly may be somewhat probable, (says this Author) if what they assert had not been first confuted by the Holy Scripture; and secondly, by the Writings of those Christians who were more ancient than Victor, such as Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, and several others that maintain in their Discourses the Divinity of Jesus Christ. For who can be ignorant of the Writings of Irenaeus and Melito, who have taught, that Jesus Christ was God and Man at the same time. And even those Hymns and Psalms written by the Faithful since the begin∣ning of Christianity, extol the Word of God, attributing Divinity thereto. So that since the Do∣ctrine of the Church has been Preached for so many years, how can they say, that till Victor's time the whole Church was of their Opinion? Are they not-ashamed to invent this Calumny against Victor, who knew very well that Theodotus the Currier, who was the first Author of the Sect of those that deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, was turned out of the Church by Victor himself? For if this Bishop had been of the same mind with Theodotus, how comes it to pass that he Excommu∣nicated him upon the account of his Doctrine? And what probability is there, that Zephirinus, who succeeded Victor, and continued in the See of Rome for ten years, should make an alteration in the Doctrine of the Church?

And thus it is that this Author confutes the General Principle of all Hereticks that ever were, or ever shall be, giving us an infallible Rule to convince them, which has been, and shall always be, the Custom in the Church of God. For there was never any Age, where∣in the Hereticks did not say, that the Church had changed its Doctrine, nor was there ever any time wherein they were not confuted first by Scripture, and secondly by Tradition, that is to say, by the Testimony of Authors, who lived before the Rise of those Heresies. Eusebius adds another Frag∣ment from the same Author, where he speaks of the Penance of a Confessor called Natalis, who suf∣fering himself to be abused by Asclepiodotus, and Theodotus the Goldsmith, the Disciple of Theodo∣tus the Currier, was Tormented for several Nights as a Punishment for his Fault, and afterwards did publick Penance for the same in the Pontificate of Zephirinus, and so was Reconciled to the Church. To conclude, in this last Passage he describes the Character of these Hereticks, and he says, that they have corrupted the Scriptures, and overthrown the Rule of Faith; that when we object to them any Passages of Scripture, they try whether they can make thereof any Compound or Disjunctive Syllogisms; that they study Geometry and Logick, and that they pervert the simplicity of the Faith taught in the Holy Scriptures, by their false Subtilties, which is the Common Character of all He∣reticks. We do not know who this Author is, nor what was the Title of his Book e 1.285: But this Fragment set down by Eusebius plainly discovers, that he was a Learned Man, and well skilled in the Controversie, and understood how to Reason closely against the Hereticks, and to give admirable Rules for their Conviction.

TERTULLIAN.

TErtullian a 1.286 was a Native of Africa, of the City of Carthage b 1.287. His Father was a Centu∣rion * 1.288 in the Troops which served under the Proconsul of Africa c 1.289 And there is no doubt to be made, but that he was at first a Heathen d 1.290, but it is not known when, nor upon what occasion he was entred into the Church e 1.291. He flourished chiefly under the Reigns of the Emperors Severus, and Antoninus Caracalla f 1.292, from about the year of our Lord 194, till towards the year 216. And it is very probable, that he lived several years after, since S. Jerom relates, that it was reported in his time, that he lived to an extream old Age g 1.293. But we do not exactly know the time of his Death.

The Books that he wrote to his Wife sufficiently shew, that he was a Married Man, but we cannot gather from thence when he was Married. The Learned are divided as to this matter, some pre∣tending that he married his Wife before he was a Christian, and that he left her after he embraced Christianity; others believing, that he was not Married till after he was Baptized. Which has been the occasion that some have found a difficulty in clearing this Point, which at first sight seems to be of no great moment, whether, as it is commonly believed, that Tertullian was ordained a Priest with∣in a little time after his Conversion; if he married his Wife after he was Baptized, and afterwards remained with her, it would seem that it might be concluded from thence, that in his time it was lawful for Priests to Marry. And this is that which has made Pamelius say, that Tertullian. before he was ordained Priest, made a Vow of Continence to his Wife. But because it appears in the Books which he directed to her, that he still lived with her when he wrote them, the Author of the Life of Tertullian and Origen has been obliged to say, that he might maintain Pamelius's Opinion, that these Books were written by Tertullian immediately after his Conversion: Though it is more probable, that Tertullian was not Married till after he was Baptized h 1.294, and that he did not write these Books to his Wife till he was old i 1.295, a little before he fell into the Errors of the Montanists.

There is no Passage in his Writings from whence it can be concluded, that he was a Priest of the Catholick Church k 1.296; but S. Jerom affirms it so positively l 1.297, that there is no reason to question it. It is commonly believed, that he was a Priest of the Church of Rome m 1.298: But being of Carthage, and ha∣ving almost always remained there, he ought rather to be called a Priest of the Church of Carthage, than of Rome. He was not so happy as to preserve this Dignity to the end of his days, for after ha∣ving continued in the Church for about 40 or 45 years, he separated from it in the beginning of the Third Century n 1.299, to follow the Sect of Montanus and his Disciples.

As to the Reasons of his Separation, some have said, that it was Jealousie that carried him to this Excess, because Victor was Preferred before him to the See of Rome; Others say, that he was angry because he could not get the Bishopr••ck of Carthage, which he put in for, and that this made him take up such a Resolution; And lastly, others have assigned different Reasons o 1.300, which are yet less probable; But this is rather to divine, than to give the Reasons of Tertullian's Change: Which are no where grounded upon the Testimony of any ancient Writer. That which has the most likelihood, is what is related by S. Jerom, that the Envy which the Roman Clergy bore him, and the Outragious manner wherewith they treated him, exasperated him against the Church, and induced him to sepa∣rate from it. And besides, the extraordinary Austerity which appeared in the Sect of the Montanists, suited very well with his violent and severe Temper, which caused him to carry every thing to Ex∣tremities. And it was for this reason that he was so enraged against the Catholicks, and that he treated the Church with such Fury, after his Separation from it. It does not appear by his Books, that he ever afterwards returned from his Error, and none of the Ancients have affirmed it; but on the contrary, they have all spoken of him, as of a dead Man out of the Communion of the Church. It would therefore be a thing altogether against common Sense to imagine, as some have done, that he at last returned into the Bosom of the Church.

And this is an exact Abridgment of Tertullian's Life; let us now proceed to his Writings, and be∣gin by examining the Order, according to which they were Composed, that so we may afterwards make a more exact Judgment of them. And by considering them in this manner with relation to the order of Time, they may be divided into two Classes: The first, comprising those which he composed whilst he was still a Catholick; And the second, those which he wrote after he was a Montanist. They are easily distinguished, because he never fails in his later Books, of speaking of the Holy-Ghost of M••ntanus, of the Prophecies of the Montanists, and of their Extraordinary Fasts, of declaiming against Second Marriages, and against the Absolution which is granted by the Catho∣lioks to those who fall into Sin after Baptism; or lastly, of Railing against the Catholicks whom he calls Psychici, that is to say, Carnal and Sensual. But we must consider them more particularly, and examine in what Years the several Books were written.

It is evident, that Tertullian wrote his Book Of Pennance, whilst he was yet a Catholick; for therein he expresly confutes one of the Principal Errors of the Montanists, by proving, that those who have committed Sins after their Baptism, may obtain Absolution from the Church, provided they do Penance. Erasmus questions, whether this Book be Tertullian's or no, because it is written more politely than his other Books; and the Authority of Erasmus has made Rhenanus reject this Discourse, though since 'tis quoted under Tertullian's Name, by S. Pacianus an Author of the Fourth Century,

there seems no reason to question its being Tertullian's: Besides, the difference of the Style is not very considerable, and it is no wonder that Tertullian, when he was a young Man, and newly Converted, should write a Book, upon which he bestowed so great pains, more politely than usual.

His Book of Baptism was written about the same time: For it is not only free from all the Errors of the Montanists, but even what he says, That Baptism is reserved to the Bishops, and that it is never per∣mitted to Women to Teach or to Baptize, is expresly contrary to their Discipline.

Besides, we have no reason to doubt, but that he composed the Discourse of Prayer whilst he was yet a Catholick: For speaking therein concerning Fasts, he says, That there is no Solemn Fast among the Christians, but that which is before Easter; which is contrary to the Discipline of the Montanists, who observe several Lents. Besides, he cites in this Treatise the Book of the Pastor, which he rejected after he was a Montanist. We cannot exactly tell in what Year these Books were written, nor which of the three were Composed first.

His Apology for the Christian Religion was wrote about the year 200 p 1.301, in the beginning of the Per∣secution under the Emperor Severus. It is commonly believed, that he wrote it at Rome, and Ad∣dress'd it to the Senate: But it is more probable, that it was composed in Africa q 1.302, and indeed he does not address himself to the Senate, but to the Proconsul of Africa, and the Governors of the Provinces.

The Books concerning Patience, and the Exhortation to the Martyrs, may have been written about the same time: But that to Scapula was not composed till some years after, as well as the Two Books to the Nations.

Afterwards, as he began to incline towards the Montanists, he wrote about the year 202, or 203, the Discourses concerning Publick Sights and Spectacles, and of Idolatry r 1.303. This is the last of the two, the other being quoted Chap. 13. He was not yet a thorough-paced Montanist, but he began to em∣brace their Opinions, though he had not yet openly left the Church. He still kept the same Opi∣nions when he composed his Books Of the Ornament, and Dresses of Women s 1.304: And two Books Dedi∣cated to his Wife. His Book of The Testimony of the Soul has no certain Epocha t 1.305; but as we do not find therein any Foot-steps of the Errors of the Montanists, we may believe that it was written by Tertullian before he separated from the Church.

And these are all the Works that can be attributed to Tertullian whilst he remained Orthodox, all the others being certainly written after his returning Montanist. His Books against Marcion are the

first of these last kind of Books v 1.306; The Epocha of them is certain, for in the first Book, chap. 15, he says, That he writ it in the 15th Year of the Emperor Severus, that was the 207th after Christ. In the first of these Books he promises his Book of Praescriptions x 1.307: So that although this be a very ex∣cellent Discourse, and that it contains nothing but what is Catholick. yet it must be confessed that he composed it when he was a Montanist, unless we should say, that he kept it by him for some time un∣published: However it be, it was composed when he wrote his Book concerning the Flesh of Jesus Christ, wherein he refers to the Book of Praescriptions in the second Chapter.

The Book concerning the Soul was written after the Books against Marcion, which are cited in the second Chapter, but before the Book concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh, where he quotes his Book concerning the Soul, and also that concerning the Flesh of Jesus Christ. So that this is the Order of the Books composed by Tertullian after those against Marcion. The Book of Praescriptions, of the Soul, of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, of the Resurrection of the Flesh; these were all composed from the year 207, to the year 210.

His Scorpiacus y 1.308, his Book De Coronâ z 1.309, and that De Pallio aa 1.310, were written about the same time, but we do not know the year. In his Book De Coronâ, he says, That he had composed a Treatise con∣cerning the Confessions, and Sufferings of the Martyrs. Baronius believes, that it is the Scorpiacus which he means: But I believe, it is rather that Book concerning Flight in time of Persecution. For his Scorpiacus was written against Hereticks, whereas that which he intended, when he wrote the Book De Coronâ, ought to have been against the Pastors, who withdrew themselves in time of Persecution.

The Book against the Jews was written towards the end of the Reign of Severus, in the year 209, as appears by what he says of the State of the Roman Empire in the seventh Chapter bb 1.311. We do not certainly know the time when those Books were written against Praxeas, against Hermogenes, and against the Valentinians, but only that they were written by Tertullian when he was a Montanist cc 1.312. Neither can we give any account of the time of his writing the following Treatises in Defence of the Montanists against the Church; His Discourse of Chastity, of Fasts, of Monogamy, his Exhortation to Chastity, of Flight in time of Persecution, and that wherein he proves, That Virgins ought to be veil'd. S. Jerom adds to these, Six Books of Extasie, and a Treatise against Apollonius, which are lost.

I have now nothing to consider, but the small Treatise addressed to Scapula, which we certainly know when it was written, for it was after the Death of Severus under Antoninus Caracalla, about

the year 213 dd 1.313. And the two Books to the Gentiles were composed about the same time ee 1.314. And this is the Chronology of all the Works of Tertullian.

There are some others which are falsly attributed to him: And amongst these we are to reckon the small Catalogue of Heresies, which is at the end of the Book of Praescriptions. For first of all, it is of a different Style. Secondly, it was not to be found in the old Manuscript of Agobardus, which is the most ancient Manuscript of Tertullian's Works, nor in another old Manuscript, which Rhenanus made use of for the first Edition of Tertullian. Thirdly, in those Manuscripts where it is to be found, it is separated from the Praescriptions, and sometimes in stead of being at the end, it is placed in the beginning, and so Trithemius both saw, and quoted it. Fourthly, the Praescriptions have a Conclusion before this Catalogue, wherein Tertullian does not promise to make such an Abridgment of the Here∣sies, but to write against them all separately. Fifthly, 'tis the Work of some Author that lived after S. Epiphanius, from whom he borrows the History of Marcion, and perhaps he may have taken from S. Jerom what he says concerning the Jews.

There goes likewise under Tertullian's name a Letter concerning Jewish Meats, but it is of a quite different Style, and the places of Scripture are there quoted after another manner than they are in Ter∣tullian's Works, which plainly shews, that it is none of his: 'Tis a Letter of a Pastor to his Church, written in the time of Persecution. S. Jerom attributes to Novatian a Letter concerning Jewish Meats, which in all probability is this very Treatise that bears the same Title.

There is likewise attributed to Tertullian, a Book concerning the Trinity, which is none of his: For besides the difference of the Style, that Author mentions the Heresie of Sabellius, which was after Tertullian's time. S. Jerom observes, that Novatian writ a Book of the Trinity, wherein he had made an Abridgment of Tertullian's Book; and he adds, that several Persons attributed Novatian's Book to S. Cyprian. The Book of the Trinity, whereof we speak, might possibly be this Abridg∣ment of Novatian, especially since Ruffinus observes, that Novatian's Book was corrupted by the Mace∣donians, which agrees with this Treatise whereof we speak, in which there are Errors concerning the Divinity of the Holy-Ghost.

There pass also under Tertullian's Name several Poems, which are no more his, than they are Virgil's or Homer's. The Poem called Genesis, seems to be that which Gennadius attributes to Salvian Bishop of Marseilles ff 1.315, that concerning the Judgment of God was, perhaps, composed by Verecun∣dus gg 1.316 an African Bishop, mentioned by Isidorus Hispalensis, in the seventh Chapter of his first Book of Illustrious Men. In the Poem against Marcion hh 1.317, there are some Opinions different from those of Ter∣tullian. There is likewise a Poem to a Senator in Pamelius's Edition, one of Sodom, and one of Jonas and Ninive in the Bibliotheca Patrum, of which we do not know the Authors; the first is ancient, and the other two seem to be written by the same Author. Besides, S. Jerom affirms, that Tertullian writ several other Treatises, which were lost in his time, and amongst others, a Book Of the Habits of Aaron, whereof this Father speaks in his Letter to Fabiola. He quotes likewise a Book Of the Circumcision, another Of those Creatures that are Clean, and of such as are Unclean, a Book concerning Extasie, and another against Apollonius; Tertullian himself cites several other Treatises of his own composing, as in his Book Of the Soul, a Discourse concerning Paradise, and in his Book Of the Testimony of the Soul, chap. 2. a Discourse Of Destiny; and in another place, a Book concerning The Hope of the Faithful, and another against Apelles. He had also composed a former Work against Marcion, which being lost in his own time, he was obliged to write a new one. Lastly, he wrote the Discourses Of Baptism, Of Publick Sights and Spectacles, and that wherein he proves, That Virgins ought to be veil'd, in Greek.

But we have said enough of Tertullian's Works as to what relates to Criticism and Chronology, we will now look upon them with relation to what they contain. And considering them thus, we may

distinguish them into three Classes: The first, comprizing those which were written against the Gen∣tiles. The second, those which were made against Hereticks. And the third, those which relate to Discipline and Manners. The first Book of this first Classis is his Apology against the Gentiles, wherein he shews the Injustice of those Persecutions and Sufferings which they inflicted on the Christians, and the Falshood of those Accusations which were laid to their Charge; and at the same time proves the Excellency of their Religion, and the Folly of that of the Heathens. He begins, by shewing that there is nothing more unjust or opposite to the very intent and design of Laws, than to Condemn without Understanding, and to Punish without considering whether there be any just Ground for such a Condemnation. And yet that this is put in practise every day against the Christians, that they are Hated, Condemned, and Punished, merely upon the account of their being Christians, without eve•• considering or giving themselves the trouble to be informed what it is to be a Christian. That there are indeed some Laws made by the Emperors, which forbid Men to be Christians, but that these Laws are Unjust, subject to Alteration, made by Evil Emperors, and contrary to the Opinions of the Justest and Wisest amongst them. He afterwards confutes the Calumnies which were spread abroad against the Christians, as that they used in their Night-Meetings to cut a Child's Throat, and to devour it, and that after they had put out the Candles, they had filthy and abominable Conversa∣tions amongst themselves. He shews, that there is not only so much as the least Proof of these Crimes alledged against them, but that their Life, their Manners, and the Principles of their Religion, were directly opposite to these Abominations.

We are, says he, beset daily, we are continually betrayed, we are very often surprized and oppressed, even in the very time of our Meetings; But did they ever find this Child dead, or a dying? Was there ever any one that could be a Witness of these Crimes? Has ever any one of those who have betrayed us discovered these things?

Besides, he presses the Heathens further, by shewing that these Crimes were frequently committed amongst themselves, that they have slain Children in Africa in Honour of Saturn, and that they have sacrificed Men in other places, that their Gods have been guilty of a thousand shameful and abominable Pra∣ctises; whereas the Christians are so far from killing a Child, and drinking its Blood, that they do not so much as eat the Flesh of those Beasts that have been strangled, and that they are such inveterate Enemies to all kind of Incests, that there are several amongst them who preserve their Virginity all their Lives. After having thus confuted those Calumnies which were set on foot, on purpose to ren∣der the Christians odious; he gives an Answer to that Objection which was made to them, That they did not own the Pagan Deities, and that they did not offer up Sacrifices to them for the Prosperity of their Emperors; from whence they concluded, that they were guilty of Sacriledge and Treason. He answers in a word, that the Christians did not pay any Honour to the Gods of the Heathens, be∣cause they were not true Gods, and he appeals, for a Testimony of this, to the Consciences of the wisest of the Heathens themselves. He evidently demonstrates, that their pretended Gods were Men, and for the most part Criminals, that were dead, and that their Images cannot be Adored without the greatest Folly and Madness in the World, that even the Wisest of the Heathens despised them. He occasionally confutes what has been objected by some to the Christians, that they wor∣shipped an Asses Head, and adored Crosses. And from thence he takes occasion to explain the Doctrine of the Christians.

We Adore, says he, One only God, the Creator of the World, who is Invisible and Incomprehensible, who will Recompence Good Men with Everlasting Life, and Punish Wicked Men with Eternal Torments, after he has raised them from the Dead.

He proves this Truth by the whole Creation, which so evidently demonstrates that there is a God:

That it is, says he, the greatest Wickedness that can possibly be conceived, not to acknowledge him, of whom 'tis impossible that we can be ignorant, even by the very Dictates which Nature inspires into all Men, which oftentimes cause them to Invoke the True God, as when we say, If God thinks good, if God pleases, God sees us, and the like. And this he calls, The Testimony of a Soul that is natu∣rally Christian: Testimonium Animae naturaliter Christianae.

Lastly, by the Antiquity of the Books of Moses, which are more ancient than all the Writings of the Greeks, and by the Authority of the Prophets, who foretold those Things that were to come to pass. Then after having proved the Unity of God, which the Jews acknowledge as well as the Christians, he goes on to that Faith of Jesus Christ, which is peculiar to the Christians: He says, that the Christians do not look upon him as a mere Man, but as God, who is the WORD of God, begotten of the same Substance, that he is thus God and the Son of God, and that his Father and He are One; that the WORD coming down into the Womb of a Virgin, (as was formerly foretold) took Flesh upon him, and was born God-Man: He only desires them to consider it as a Fable like theirs till he has proved it by Invin∣cible Arguments: Which he presently does by the Authority of the Prophets, who have plainly foretold Jesus Christ by the Miracles which he wrought, by that extraordinary Eclipse which hap∣pened at his Death, that is taken notice of in the very Records of the Heathens; and lastly, by his Miraculous Resurrection.

And all these Things, says he, are Authorized by the Testimony of Pi∣late, who being already a Christian in his Heart, wrote them to Tiberius Caesar, and the Caesars had then been Christians, if it had been possible either that the World could subsist without Emperors, or that the Emperors could be Christians.

He adds to these Proofs, that of the Establishment of the Church notwithstanding Persecutions; and that which may be drawn from the Confession of the Heathen Gods, that is to say, the Daemons who submitted themselves to Jesus Christ, and were against their wills driven out of the Bodies of those that were Possessed only by the Name of Jesus Christ. And here he makes a Digression, to prove, that the Romans owed not their Greatness and Prosperity to their Gods; from whence he concludes, that the Christians are not guilty of Treason,

since the Gods, whom they will not own, have not any Power to Succour and Preserve the Empe∣rors.

But, says he, we Invoke for their Prosperity the Eternal, the True, and the Living God, who gave them their Life and their Empire, who alone has power over them, and who alone is above them; and after whom they are the Chiefest. They are Great, only because they acknow∣ledge themselves Inferior to him, Ideo magnus est, quia Coelo minor est. 'Tis this God to whom the Christians pray with their whole Hearts, for all the Emperors, that he would grant them a long Life, a peaceable Reign, a faithful Council, valiant Soldiers, an obedient People, and in a word, all that a Man and an Emperor can possibly desire.

He adds, that the Christians have greater Obliga∣tions upon them for the Performance of this, than other Men. First, because the Holy Scripture enjoyns them to it; and Secondly, because being perswaded that the World should end together with the Roman Empire, they desired to retard those Calamities which were to happen at the end of all Things, by praying for the Preservation of the Empire. That it is true, that the Christians do not swear by the Genii of the Caesars, nor by their Health, which is more precious than those Genii who are only Daemons, and that they do not Solemnize the Festivals of the Emperors, but that this is only for fear of falling into Idolatry. That in other things they are more Obedient, and better Subjects than other Men, though they have the Power in their hands, if they had a mind to defend them∣selves.

We have been, says he, but a little time in the World, yet we are to be met with in all places; you may find us in the Cities, in the Villages, in the Armies, in the Courts of Justice, in the Senate, and in the Markets. We have left you your Temples alone to your selves. What Wars might not we be capable of Undertaking? And with what Resolution might not we carry them on, though we had not near so many Troops as you; we, who die daily with so much Joy, were it not a Law amongst us to suffer our selves rather to be killed, than to kill others. Si non apud istam Disciplinam magis liceret occidi quam occidere.

But how could the Heathens object, That the diffe∣rence of Religion could cause any disturbance in the Commonwealth, or make Parties and Factions? He says, that the Christians have no Ambition, nor Pretentions in this World, as they are Christians, are so far from forming any Parties against the Government, that they think upon nothing less than State-Affairs. And that he might perswade the whole World of this Truth, see the Description which he makes of the Christians of his time, and of their Assemblies.

We make up, says he, a Body that is united by the Bond of the same Religion, the same Discipline, and the same Hope. We assemble our selves, and compose, if I may so say, a Body of an Army, to force Heaven by our Prayers, and this Violence is very acceptable to God. We pray not only for our selves, but also for the Emperors; for their Ministers, for the Magistrates, for the good of the State; for the Peace and Quietness of the Empire; and lastly, for the retarding the end of the World. Be∣sides, we assemble our selves to Read the Holy Scriptures according to our different Wants and Necessities, for our Instruction, and Information in our Duty. These Sacred Oracles are of signal Use for the preserving our Faith, the confirming our Hope, and the regulating our Manners, by the Meditation upon its Precepts. And 'tis in these Assemblies that the necessary Exhortations and Reproofs are to be expected. The Judgments which are there delivered, are given with all the Equity and Circumspection imaginable; because those who pass Judgment are verily perswaded, that Almighty God takes notice of them. Their Censures are all Divine, and 'tis a great Presump∣tion of God's future Judgment against any One, when he has committed any Sin, for which he deserves to be separated from the Communion of Bread, and from Prayer, and the Assembly of the Faithful; and in a word, to be deprived of all manner of Communion of holy Things. Those who preside among us, are the most Ancient, and such whose Probity is very well known; and this Honour is not to be purchased for Money, but it is bestowed upon pure Virtue, for all those Concerns which relate to God, are not to be valued at a Price. If we have any kind of Treasure, it is not to be look'd upon as a Blessing that is any ways dishonourable to our Reli∣gion, as if it was to be purchased upon any account. Every one contributes according to his Ability what Alms he pleases, and when he pleases, which yet is commonly done Month••y. None are compelled; every one gives freely what he will. These Contributions are the Contributions of Piety, for we do not employ them in making merry Meetings, or in other unnecessary Expen∣ces: But to maintain and bury Orphans, and poor People, to relieve old Men and infirm Persons, to assist the Faithful who are exiled into the Islands, or condemned to work in the Mines, or con∣fined in Prison, for having embraced the Faith of Jesus Christ. We all call our selves Brethren, not only because we are all Brethren by the Right of Nature, but because we all acknowledge One and the same God for our Father, because we have all one and the same Spirit which sancti∣fies us: And lastly, because all things are common among us, but our Women. Our Feasts are called Agapae, that is to say, Entertainments of Love and Charity. They were not Instituted for debauched Parasites, but for the Entertainment of the Poor, being assured that God has a more especial Regard for them. And if the Reason of the Institution of these Feasts is wholly Sacred, the Consequences of them are equally so. There is nothing here to be seen, that is any ways con∣trary to Civility and Modesty. They do not sit down at Table, till they have refreshed and nou∣rished the Soul by Prayer, they eat no more than what is necessary to suffice Nature, and they drink no more than what is fitting and convenient for chaste and regular Persons; they take care not to glut themselves, so as to hinder their rising in the night to worship God. They discourse of such things as are profitable, because they look upon themselves, as in the Presence of God, who is a Witness of every thing that we say. The Supper is concluded with Prayer, and they do not break up in a Tumult or Disorder; but they retire regularly and with great modesty, as it is not hard for

such Persons to do, who take greater care to nourish their Souls, with that holy Discipline, in which they are instructed, than their Bodies with the Victuals which they eat.

After having thus described the Assemblies of the Christians, he shews, that those Calamities and Misfortunes which happen in the World, are unjustly attributed to them, as if they were the cause of them. He maintains, that 'tis these are the Men who divert and prevent them, and that they are very far from being any ways the occasion of attracting them. He concludes, by proving that we admire those Virtues in the Philo∣sophers, which are discernable in a much more excellent and higher Degree in the Christians.

The Two Books to the Nations are almost of the very same Subject with the Apology. And Tertullian repeats therein the greatest part of the things which he had said before in his Apology, but he puts them in another Order, explaining and enlarging upon them: So that the difference between these two Books is this, that the first is written with Heat, and without much Study; and the second is a Methodical Treatise, and composed with great Consideration. The Second Book to the Nations was written against the false Gods of the Heathens, wherein he gave an exact Account of the Deities of the several prophane Religions, and shewed how exceedingly foolish a thing it is to own them; but this Book is so imperfect, and there is so little Coherence in all that we have extant of it, that it cannot be of any great advantage to us.

In the Book of The Testimony of the Soul, he enlarges upon one Proof for Religion, which he had advanced before in his Apology, that the Soul does naturally, and even against its will, acknowledge, that there is but one God, and that there is another Life after this. He proves it by those Notions which Nature hath inspired into us, and which are so deeply engraven in our Minds, that nothing is able to efface them: So that they often come from a Man, when he thinks of them the least. As when one says without any reflection, God grant it, what pleases God, God help me, good God, &c. Expressions that manifestly suppose, that the Soul is penetrated with the knowledge of a God, as the Fear which we naturally have of Death, the desire of leaving behind us a Name to Posterity, and that Compassion which we have for the Dead do evidently suppose, that there is another Life after this. Now these Notions being natural to the Soul, and to be found in every Body, it must necessa∣rily follow, that they come from God. And this is the Subject which Tertullian enlarges upon very ingeniously in this little Treatise.

The Book to Scapula, was composed to dissuade the Governour of Africa from the Persecution which he had raised against the Christians. He begins, by representing to him, that the Christians rather wished for Martyrdom, than feared it; and that therefore it was not out of any Apprehension he had of them, that induced him to direct this Discourse to him, but the earnest Desire which he had for the Salvation of the Heathens, because the Religion of the Christians obliges them to love their Enemies, and to endeavour to convert them from the Error wherein they are at present. He afterwards tells him, that the Christians adore that God whom Mankind knows by Nature; he represents to him, that it ought to be left to the free Direction of Men to embrace that Religion, which seems to them to be most agreeable to Truth: That another Man's Religion does neither hurt nor good to any body: That it is not an Act of Religion to constrain Men to embrace a Religion, which they ought to chuse voluntarily. * 1.318 Non est Religionis cogere Religionem, quae sponte suscipi debet, non vi. He adds, that the Life of Christians is unblameable; that they pay an entire Obedience to the Emperors; that they were never found engaged in a Party with the Rebels.

They are, says he, Enemies to no Man, and least of all to the Emperor, very well knowing, that it is their God who has established him, they love, honour, and respect him, most heartily wishing his Preservation, and that of the Empire, as long as the World shall continue; We therefore honour the Emperor after that manner, which is lawful for us, and which only can be of advantage to him; that is to say, as a Man who is next under God, and who has received from God every thing that he has. We likewise offer Sacrifices for his safety, but they are the Sacrifices of Prayer: For God does not stand in need of Incense, nor of the Blood of Victims.

After having thus vindicated the Christians from the Crime of High-Treason, he dissuades Scapula from the Persecution against Christians, by the Examples of those who have been punished for persecuting of them, and likewise by the Examples of those who have had so much moderation, as to permit them to enjoy their Liberty and Tranquility. And these are the Books written by Tertullian, in defence of the Christian Religion against the Gentiles.

There is but one Book of his against the Jews, wherein, First, he proves, that the Law of Moses, and its Ceremonies, were established but for a time, and that they were to cease at the coming of Jesus Christ. And Secondly, that the Messiah expected by the Jews, and foretold by the Prophets is already come, and that this is Jesus Christ. Which he evidently makes out from the Prophets, who foretold the time of his Coming, and the circumstances of his Life and Death. He observes, that the Original of the Jews mistake arose from their confounding his last Coming, wherein he will appear in great Power and Glory, with his first Coming, wherein he was seen in great Humility, and took upon him the mean Condition of other Men.

Although the Book of Praescriptions against the Hereticks is not, in the order of Time, the first that Tertullian has written against them, yet it is so, as to the Order of the Matters which it contains; because it is designed against all Heresies in general, whereas the others are only against some par∣ticular Heresie. This Book is entituled, Of Praescriptions, or rather, Of Praescription against the Hereticks; because herein he shews, that their Doctrine is not to be admitted by reason of its No∣velty. Before he enters upon the Matter, he endeavours to obviate the Scandal of those, who

admire, how there could be any Heresies in the World, how they could have been so great and so powerful, and how it comes to pass, that so many considerable Persons in the Church, have been se∣duced to embrace them, by shewing that Heresies have been foretold, that they are necessary Evils for the Tryal of our Faith, and that we must not judge of Faith by Persons, but of Persons by their Faith; Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? After having given this necessary Caution, he lays down the first Principle of Prescription.

We are not allowed, says he, to introduce any thing that is new in Religion, nor to chuse by our selves, what another has invented. We have the Apo∣stles of our Lord for Founders, who were not themselves the Inventors, and Authors of what they have left us; but they have faithfully taught the World the Doctrine which they received from Je∣sus Christ. Heresies have risen from Philosophy and humane Wisdom, which is quite different from the Spirit of Christianity. We are not allowed to entertain our Curiosity, nor to enquire af∣ter any thing that is beyond what we have been taught by Jesus Christ and his Gospel, Nobis curiosi∣tate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium. And when we have once be∣lieved, we are to give credit to nothing any farther than as we have already believed.

And here it is, that he Answers the Objection of the Hereticks, who urged this Passage of Scripture, Seek and you shall find: by telling us, that it is not permitted to seek when we have once found, that it would be a Labour to no purpose, to seek for Truth among all the Heresies; and lastly, that if it be per∣mitted to seek, it is after having admitted the Rule, that is to say, the principal Articles of Faith, which are contained in the Creed. But as the Hereticks did often alledge the Holy Scripture, in Defence of themselves; he proves that the Church was not obliged to enter into a Discussion of those Passages which they quoted; that this way of confuting them is very tedious, and difficult, because they do not acknowledge all the Books of the Scriptures, or else they corrupt them, or put a false Interpretation upon them; which renders the Victory that is to be obtained over them uncertain and difficult. He says then, that it is to better purpose to understand perfectly, who it is, that is in Pos∣session of the Faith of Jesus Christ; who those Persons are, to whom the Scriptures were committed in Trust; and who are the first Authors who have given an Account of our Religion. He goes back even to Jesus Christ, who is the Source and Original of this Religion, and to the Apostles who re∣ceived it from him. He shews that it is impossible, that the Apostles should preach any other Do∣ctrine, than that of Jesus Christ, and that all the Apostolical Churches should embrace any other Faith, than that which the Apostles had delivered to them; from whence he concludes, that it must of necessity follow, that that Doctrine, which is Conformable to that, which is found to be the Faith of all the Churches, must be that which was taught by Jesus Christ: and that on the contrary, that that which is opposite thereto, must be a Novel Doctrine. He farther confounds the Hereticks by the Novelty of their Opinions. It is evident, says he, that the most ancient Doctrine is that of Jesus Christ, and by consequence that alone is true, and that, that on the contrary, which had not any Date till after his Ascension, must be false and supposititious. Having laid down this infallible Rule, he proves the Doctrine of the Hereticks to be of a later Date than that of the Church, because the Au∣thors of the Heresies were after the Establishment of the Church, from which they have separated themselves. That the several Sects of the Hereticks cannot reckon their Original from the time of the Apostles, nor shew a Succession of Bishops, from their Times, as the Apostolical Churches can, with whom they do not communicate. That though they could pretend to such a Succession, yet the No∣velty of their Doctrine condemned by the Apostles, and the Apostolical Churches would convince them of being Cheats and Impostors, and that what they have added, taken away, or changed in the Books of the Holy Scripture, does farther discover, that they invented their Doctrine after these Books were composed. That lastly, their Discipline and Conduct, which is absolutely Humane, and Earthly, without Order, and without Rule, renders them every way contemptible. I have exactly set down the Reasonings of Tertullian in this Work; because, as he himself observes, they are not ••nly proper to confute the Heresies that were in his Time, but also to disprove all those that sprang ••p afterwards, or that should arise hereafter, even to the end of the Church.

I shall not enlarge so much upon the Works which were written against those Heresies which ••re now extinct. The most considerable, is, that which he composed against Marcion, which is di∣sided into Five Books. This Heretick maintained that there were two Principles, or two Gods; the ••e Good, and the other Evil; The one Perfect, and the other Imperfect; that this last is the God whom the Jews worship, who created the World, and delivered the Law to Moses; whereas the first 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Father of Jesus Christ, whom he sent to destroy the Works of the Evil One; that is to say, ••e Law and the Prophets, which Marcion rejected. He affirmed likewise, that Jesus Christ was not ••loathed with true Flesh. And by consequence, that he did not suffer really, but only in appearance. ••hese are the Errors which Tertullian confutes in this Work. In the First Book, he shews that the un∣••nown God of Marcion, is only a Fantastical and Imaginary Being. In the Second he proves that, •…•…at God the Creator of the World, whom the Jews worshipped, is the Only true God, and the Au∣••••or of all Good. After having demonstrated this Truth by invincible Arguments, he resolves those ••ifficulties which are raised by the Marcionites against God's Conduct in the Old Testament, He ex∣•…•…ains for Example, Why he has permitted Sin? Why he suffers Sinners? Why he punishes Men so •…•…erely? Why he seems sometimes to alter his Conduct and Design, &c. In the Third Book he ••ews, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is the Creator of the World, and the Author of the •…•…w, that he has been foretold by the Prophets, and that he took upon him true Flesh, by taking •…•…on him our Nature. In the Fourth Book he shews, that it is the same God, both in the Old and the New Testament. He reconciles the pretended Contradictions alledged by Marcion, and shews

that the whole Life of Jesus Christ was foretold, and figured in the Old Testament. That Jesus Christ has explained the Prophets, and perfected the Precepts of the Law. In a word he proves at the end of this Book, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Creator of the World, by the Doctrine of the Prophets, by his own Doctrine, by his Inclinations, by his Virtues, by his Opini∣ons; and lastly, by his Resurrection. In the Last Book, he shews from the Epistles of St. Paul, that it is the same God, that is preached both in the Old, and in the New Testament, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Creator of the World. There are in this Book two difficult Passages concerning the Eucharist, which have given Subject to very great Disputes; of which I shall not speak in this Place, contenting my self to refer the Reader to those, who have discoursed of them at large, that so I may pass on to the other Works of Tertullian.

After having maintained the Unity of God against Marcion; he defends the Trinity of Persons against Praxeas. This Heretick came from Asia, to diffuse the Poison of his Errror in Rome; he was nam∣rally of a very unquiet and uneasie Temper, and besides was vainly puft up with the false Opinion of being a Martyr, which Quality he took upon him, because he was for a short time imprisoned for the Faith. Being come to Rome, under the Pontificate of Victor, he prevented this Pope from acknow∣ledging the New Prophecies of Montanus, besides he made him, if we believe Tertullian, revoke the Communicatory Letters which he had granted to the Montanists. He begun to divulge his Heresie in the City of Rome, and afterwards went into Africa; where he made some Proselytes; but he was convinced by a Catholick (which without doubt must be Tertullian) and obliged to put down in Writing a Recantation of his Error. So after he had concealed his Doctrine for some time, he pub∣lished it anew, and Tertullian, who had confuted him before, whilst he was yet a Catholick, wrote a∣gainst him, after he fell into the Error of the Montanists. He establishes in this Book, the Distincti∣on of the WORD, and the Trinity of Persons against the Heresie of Praxeas, who acknowledged but one Person in God, making no Distinction between the Father and the Son, and by consequence maintained, that the Father made himself Man, and suffered for Us. Tertullian opposes to him the Rule of Faith, which obliges us to acknowledge only one God in Three Persons, which are all Three of the same Substance, and have all one and the same Power, and that it was the Person of the Son, who was incarnate, and dyed for Us. He shews that this Trinity of Persons, does no ways prejudice the Unity of the Godhead, as the Unity of the Godhead does no ways hinder the Trinity of Persons That the Son is of the Substance of the Father, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son. That the WORD which was from all Eternity in God, and who did, as it were, come out of him to create and govern the World, as a Person subsisting, who nevertheless has not a different Sub∣stance from that of the Father, so that it does not follow from hence, that we believe two Gods, and two Lords; that it is the Son, and not the Father, who made himself Man, without ceasing to be God, and that the Properties of humane Nature, are only to be found in Jesus Christ. In a Word, he ex∣plains very handsomely in this Treatise, the Faith of the Church, concerning the Mysteries of the Tri∣nity and the Incarnation. It must be owned, that in some Places he expresses himself after a manner, not very agreeable to that which has been used in the following Ages. ii 1.319 But we must pardon these kind of Expressions in the Ancients, who wrote before those Terms, which they made use of, were fixt and limited to a certain Sense.

But it is a difficult Matter to excuse him, where he seems to assert, as well in this Book, as in other Places of his Works, that God had a Body, or rather that he was Corporeal. Yet there are some Authors that vindicate him from this Error, and this has occasioned a Question, which is so common, and if I may say it, so trivial, that I do not think it necessary to say any thing of it in this Place.

Hermogenes was another African Heretick, who maintained that Matter was Eternal, and that God did not create it when he made the World, but that he only made use thereof, to form things as we see. He suckt this Error from the Philosophy of the Stoicks, and defended it by Syllogis•…•…, connected according to their Methods of Reasoning, which made Tertullian say in the Treatise which

he composed against him, that the Philosophers were the Patriarchs of the Hereticks. He there dis∣covers the Fallacies of the Sophisms of this Heretick, and shews that our Religion teaches us, that God created even that Matter, whereof he made the World.

The Book against the Valentinians, is rather a Satyr and Raillery, than a serious Confutation of the Extravagant Sentiments of these Hereticks. Valentinus, the first Author of this Sect, separated from the Church out of spight, because hoping to be Elected a Bishop, by reason of his Wit and Eloquence, he was put by to prefer another Person, who had suffered for the Faith of Jesus Christ in times of Per∣secution. After he had separated from the Church, he invented, or rather revived an old Opinion, according to the Principles of which, he feigned a Succession, and imaginary Generation of a kind of Deities. His Disciples refined upon his Notion, and formed quite different Systems. But as all these Fancies were impertinent and ridiculous, so they took great Care to conceal them, lest if they should discover them, all the World should be presently sensible of their Extravagancy: 'Tis this which Tertullian upbraids them with.

If you teach the Truth, says he to them, why don't you discover it? It persuades by teaching, and it teaches by persuading; it is not ashamed of shewing it self; on the contrary, 'tis ashamed of nothing, but of being concealed. You reproach us for our Simplicity; it is true, we love it, because it is by this means, that we know, and make known the Will of God.

But 'tis no wonder that the Hereticks should blame this Simplicity, and should so carefully conceal their Principles; for they were so extravagant, that the bare Discovering of them would be sufficient to render them ridiculous: 'Tis this which Tertullian does in this Work.

I undertake; says he in this Book, to discover to the Eyes of all Men, the hidden Mystery; but though I profess to relate the Opinions of these Hereticks, without making a particular Confutation, yet I hope I shall be pardoned, if I cannot forbear censuring them in some Places. What I do is nothing but a Sport before a real Combat, I shall rather shew them where I could strike them, than lay them on. But if there are found some Passages that may excite Laughter, 'tis because the very Subject causes it. There are many things which deserve to be jeered and ridiculed at this rate, lest if we should confute them seriously, we should seem to lay too great Stress upon them. Nothing is more due to Vanity than Laughter, and to Laugh, does properly belong to the Truth, because it is pleasant▪ and to Sport with its Enemies, because it is certain of the Victory.

And these are all the Books which are particularly against the Hereticks; there are others, in which Tertullian likewise confutes some Errors, and defends some Catholick Truths, though they were not written against any Hereticks in particular. Such are the following Books.

The Book of the Flesh of Jesus Christ. wherein he proves against the Hereticks Marcion, Apelles▪ and Valentinus, that Jesus Christ took upon him true Flesh, like to ours, in the Womb of the Virgin.

The Title alone of the Book of the Resurrection of the Flesh, is enough to discover, that it was written against the Sadducees, and against the Hereticks who denied the Resurrection.

The Scorpiacus, so called, because it is a Remedy against the Poison of Hereticks, like Scorpions, defends the Necessity and Excellency of Martyrdom against the Gnosticks.

The Book of the Soul, written against the Opinions of the Philosophers, and the Hereticks, treats at large of the Nature of the Soul, and its Qualities. But it is full of false Principles and Errors. He pretends that the Soul is Corporeal, and that it takes a certain Form of a Body, though it be invisi∣ble; he confutes the Opinion of Plato, concerning Reminiscency, or the Faculty of Remembring, and Py∣thagoras's Transmigration; he affirms, that the Soul does not come from Heaven, but that it is form∣ed with the Body, and that as the Body of the Parents produces a Body, so their Soul produces a Soul. That all Souls, and even those of the Martyrs, which some have excepted, are disposed of af∣ter Death, in a certain Subterraneous Place, where they receive Refreshment, and Torment, accord∣ing to the Good or Evil which they have done: And that they expect the Resurrection, and the Day of Judgment, which will render them entirely happy, or entirely Miserable to all Eternity. There are likewise in this Treatise, some other particular Opinions; as for Instance, that the Soul and Breath are the same thing; that that which is unreasonable in the Soul, comes from the Devil; that every Soul has its Daemon; that all Dreams are not vain.

The Book of Baptism is divided into two Parts; the First relating to Doctrine, and the Second to Discipline. In the First he defends the Necessity and Efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism against the Hereticks called Caiannites; he proves that the Waters of Baptism do procure to us Forgiveness of our Sins, and of the Punishment which they deserve.

What can there be, says he, more miracu∣lous, than to see that by washing the Body by an external Baptism, we efface at the same time, the Mortal Stain of the Soul, and when that Stain is once taken away, the Punishment is likewise re∣mitted to us?

He afterwards discourses of the Imposition of Hands, and of the Unction which fol∣lowed after Baptism, to make the Holy Ghost descend upon the Faithful, and to draw down upon them the Blessings of Heaven.

We do not receive, says he, the Fulness of the Holy Ghost by Wa∣ter; but it prepares us for receiving it by washing us from our Sins. And as St. John prepared the Way of the Lord, so the Angel which is present in Baptism, prepares the Way for the Holy Ghost, by the Absolution of our Sins, which we obtain by Faith, which is confirmed and sealed by the Invocation of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. When we come out of the Font we are anointed; and this Unction, which is performed on our Flesh, is profitable to our Soul, as external Baptism has a spiritual Effect, which is to deliver us from our Sins. Afterwards, there is the Laying on of Hands, to draw upon us the Holy Ghost, and this most Holy Spirit descends voluntarily from Heaven, into purified and blessed Bodies.

In the Second Part, he discourses of several Questions

concerning Baptism, which relate to Discipline. The first is concerning the Baptism of St. John, whe∣ther it were from Heaven, or from Earth? He says, that it was from Heaven, because it was or∣dained by Heaven: However, That it did not bestow any thing that was Heavenly, but that it made way for Heavenly things, by bringing us to Repentance; and that it neither conferred the Ho∣ly Ghost, nor Remission of Sins. The Second, is concerning the Necessity of Baptism, upon which he starts a considerable Objection, taken from what there might seem that the Apostles, of whose Sal∣vation no doubt can be made, were never Baptized. To this he Answers, That possibly they might have been Baptized, though we find no mention of it; and in the Second place, that that Familiarity which they had with Jesus Christ, the Greatness of their Faith, and the Ardency of their Charity, might supply in them the Defect of Baptism, since Jesus Christ has promised the Remission of Sins, and Salvation to those Persons who had Faith, though they were not Baptized. That nevertheless, there is no doubt to be made, but that at present, Baptism is necessary to Salvation, and that though formerly a Man might be saved only by Faith in one God, yet that now we must believe in Jesus Christ, and that it was necessary, that this Faith should be sealed by Baptism, that Jesus Christ had made a Law for it, and prescribed the Manner, saying, Go and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And that this Sentence of the Gospel: If a Man be not born again of Water, and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, does invincibly establish the Necessity of Baptism.

The Third Question is, Whether one may Baptize more than once? He says expresly, that there is but one Baptism, that it never ought to be reiterated. He excepts however the Baptism of Here∣ticks; Who, says he, are not able to give it, because they have it not. And therefore it is that we have a Rule among us to Re-baptize them. He adds, that Martyrdom is a kind of Second Baptism, which is instead of the Baptism of Water, when any Person has not received it, and which repairs it, when that Grace is lost, which it conferred.

The Fourth Question, is concerning the Minister of Baptism: He says, the Bishop has Power of Administring it, and after him the Priests and Deacons; nevertheless, with his Permission, to set a higer Value on the Priesthood. That in * 1.320 Case of Necessity, any Man may administer it, and that we should be Guilty of the Loss of a Soul, if we did not afford it that Grace, whereby it may be saved; there are none but Women, to whom he seems absolutely to prohibit the Administring of Baptism, in any Circumstance whatsoever.

The Fifth Reflection, is concerning the Condition of those who are to receive Baptism. He says, that it is not to be Administred rashly, and that it is good sometimes to put some Stop to it, that those who receive it may be the better disposed. He would chiefly have this Discipline observed in respect to In∣fants, and though he supposes that they are capable of receiving Baptism, yet he will not allow them to be Baptized without Necessity.

What Necessity is there, says be, to expose God-fathers to the Hazard of Answering for those whom they hold at the Fonts; since they may be prevented by Death, from being able to perform those Promises which they have made for the Children, or else may be disappointed by their Evil Inclinations. Jesus Christ says, indeed, Hinder not little Children from coming to me; but that they should come to him as soon as they are advanced in Years as soon as they have leart their Religion, when they may be taught whither they are going, when they are be∣come Christians, when they begin to be able to know Jesus Christ. What is there that should com∣pel this innocent Age to receive Baptism? And since they are not yet allowed the Disposal of Tem∣poral Goods, is it reasonable that they should be entrusted with the Concerns of Heaven? For the same Reason, he farther says, it is proper to make those, who are not Married, wait for some time, by reason of the Temptations which they have to undergo till they are Married, or have attained to the Gift of Continency. Lastly, he says, Those who shall duely consider the great weight and Moment of this Divine Sacrament, will rather be afraid of making too much haste to receive it, than to defer it for some time, that so they may be the better capable of receiving it more worthily.

The Sixth, Is concerning the proper time for Administring of Baptism. He says, That it may be done at any time; but that the solemn Days for performing it, are the Times of Easter and Penticost.

Lastly, he says, That those who are desirous to dip themselves Holily in this Water, must prepare themselves for it by Fastings, by Watchings, by Prayers, and by sincere Repentance.

And this is what the Second Part contains, wherein there are but two Errors, the First whereof concerning the Baptism of Hereticks, is common to him, with several others; and the Second, which relates to the Baptism of Infants, is particular to him alone, and we shall not find any of the Anci∣ents speaking after the same manner.

The Book of Penance is the First of those which relate meerly to the Discipline of the Church; therein he distinguishes two sorts of Penance; the first is that which is performed before Baptism; and the second is that of those, who being so unhappy, as to fall into Enormous Sins after Baptism, do recover themselves by a laborious Penance. In the First Part, he shews the Necessity there is of proving and preparing Ones self, for a long time, for the Reception of this Grace of Baptism, by a true Repentance. He fears not to say, that Baptism is to no purpose, if we have not repented of our Sins, and amended them, and that it is great Presumption to imagine, that having led a disorderly Course of Life till the very Day of Baptism, we should be made Holy all of a sudden, and that we

should cease from Sinning immediately after we have received this Sacrament.

Can it be believed, says he, that the Reformation is made just at the time when we are absolved? No certainly, it is made at the time when the Pardon is yet in suspence, and that we are afraid still of the Punishment, though we had not as yet deserved to be delivered from our Sins, that we might be in a Capacity of deserving it. When God still threatens us, and not when he has pardoned us—I confess that God grants Remission of Sins, to those who receive Baptism, but they must take Pains to be made worthy of it; for who would be so bold, as to confer this Sacrament on a Person, of whose Repen∣tance he has any reason to make a Doubt. You may impose upon the Minister, and so procure Bap∣tism, by false Pretences; but God, who knows the Hearts, keeps his own Treasures himself, and does not grant his Grace, but only to those that are worthy of it; so that none can imagine that he may sin more freely, because being yet but a Catechumen, he shall receive the Remission of his Sins in Baptism; for this Sacrament is the Seal of Faith, and Repentance is the Beginning and Stamp of Faith. Lastly, We are not washt from our Pollutions by Baptism, only that we might sin no more, but because we have our Heart already purified: Quia jam corde loti sumus.

The Second Part of this Treatise, is of Penance after Baptism, called Exomologesis. He declares at first, that he finds it difficult to discourse of this Second Repentance, which is the last Hope that remains to those who have committed any Crimes, that is to say, Enormous Sins after Baptism:

Lest, says he, by treating of this new Means of recovering our selves from Sin, which God offers to us; it might seem as if we would open a Way for Sinning afresh. However, he says, that God foreseeing Man's Infirmities, and the Devil's Temptations, was willing, that though the Gate of Remission was shut, and the Grace of Baptism refused for ever to those who had forfeited their Baptismal Innocence; they should yet have one Remedy left, which is a Second Repentance, but that it is granted to them but once. He afterwards describes the laborious Exercises of this publick Penance, called Exomo∣logesis. 'Tis, says he, an Exercise instituted to humble and abase the Sinner. It makes him lead a Life that is proper to prevail with God for Mercy; it makes him lie in Sack-cloth, and upon Ashes, entirely to neglect his own Body; it overwhelms his Mind with Grief and Sorrow; it reduces him to drink nothing but Water, and to eat nothing but Bread, and to take no more than what is necessa∣ry for his Sustenance; it obliges him to prolong his Prayers, and to feed them, if I may so say, by Fastings: It causes him to break out into Sighs, Groans and Tears, to cry Day and Night to the Lord, to cast himself at the Priest's Feet, and to prostrate himself before God's Favourites. Last∣ly, To conjure all his Brethren to pray to God for him, and to appease his Wrath by their Prayers.

After having thus described the Fatigues of this Exomologesis, he shews the Necessity of it, and reproves those who were ashamed to embrace it, when they had committed Sins after Baptism.

His Book of Prayer, is a Discourse partly Moral, partly Ecclesiastical; for in the First Part, he ex∣plains the Lord's Prayer; and in the Second, he discourses of some particular Ceremonies, used in the Prayers of the Christians. First, He advises the Christians to be reconciled to their Brethren, to free their Minds from all sort of Trouble and Passion, to purifie their Hearts from all Sin, before they be∣take themselves to Prayer; Secondly, He says that the Christians do not use to wash their Hands before Prayer, but that in Praying, they commonly lift them up towards Heaven. Thirdly, That it is not necessary to take off our Cloaks when we Pray, nor to sit always after Prayer. Fourthly, That we ought to pray with a modest Countenance, lifting our Hands towards Heaven. Fifthly, That our Voices must be low, that we must not speak louder than is necessary, to be heard. For, says he, it is not the Sound of our Words that God gives ear unto; but he regards the Intention of our Heart. Sixthly, That when we fast in private, and for the sake of Devotion, we must not abstain from the Kiss of Peace, as when it is a solemn Fast against the time of Easter. Seventhly, That the Stationary Days, that is to say, those Days when several of the Faithful continued in Prayer and Fasting till Three a Clock in the Afternoon; we must not abstain from assisting at the ordinary Prayers, as if it was necessary to break our Fast, as soon as we have received the Body of Jesus Christ.

Your Stati∣on, says he, will be more solemn. Receive the Lord's Body, and keep it, and so you shall be Par∣takers of the Sacrifice, and you will perform your Devotion the better.

In his Book concerning Idolatry, he shews, that the Crime of Idolatry is not only committed by Sa∣crificing to Idols, but also several other ways, of which he gives us a very pretty Account. He pre∣tends, that all those Workmen who make Pictures, representing the False Gods; that the Astrolo∣gers, who have given to the Planets the Names of the Heathen Gods, and who attribute to them any Power and Efficacy; Professors of Rhetorick, who commend the Gods of the Heathens; the Mer∣chants, that furnish Commodities for the Adorning the Temples, and offering Sacrifices to the Gods, are all guilty of Idolatry. He maintains that it is not lawful for the Christians to Feast on those Days which the Pagans Solemnize in Honour of their Gods, nor to adorn their Houses with Torches and Laurels, in Honour of their Princes and magistrates; that they may be allowed to go to the Weddings of their Kinsfolks, though Sacrifices be offered there; but that this is only to satisfie that Duty to which we were obliged, upon the Account of our Relation. That it is likewiise lawful for Servants to follow their Masters to the Sacrifices, and for Christians to render to Heathen Emperors that which is their Due. But that they ought not to accept of Offices, nor bear Arms, at least, that they cannot do it without countenancing of Idolaty. Lastly, He does not acquit those of Idolatry, who attribute the Name of God to the pretended Deities of the Heathens, or who swear by their Name, whether it be through Custom or otherwise. And all this is grounded upon this most certain Principle, That all those who any ways favour the Wicked in their Vice, or contribute to Wicked∣ness in any manner whatsoever, are themselves guilty; but Tertullian seems to stretch it a little too

far in some Particulars, and to lay too great a S••••••ss upon the Rigour of Things which might be ex∣cused: As for Example, To bear Arms for the Defence of the Empire, to Adorn their Houses with Torches and Laurels, in Honour of their Princes▪ and to make use of some ways of Speaking that are Customary, though they may have some Affinity to Idolaty.

And to the same purpose, defending in his Book De Coronâ Militu, the Action of a Soldier, who had refused to put a Crown upon his Head; he maintains that it is absolutely prohibited to the Christians to Crown themselves, and even to bear Arms He speaks in this Discourse very advantageously of Custom and Tradition, and relates several remarkable Examples of Ceremonies, which he pretends to be deriv∣ed from Tradition.

To begin, says he, with Baptism, when we are ready to enter into the Water, and even before we make our Protestations before the Bishop, and in the Church, That we renounce the Devil all his Pomps and Mini••••es; afterwards we are plunged in the Water three times, and they make us answer to some Things which are not precisely set down in the Gospel; after that they make us taste Milk and Honey, and we bath our selves every day, during that whole Week. We receive the Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist, instituted by Jesus Christ, when we Eat, and in the Morning-Assemblies, and we do not Receive it, but from the Hands of those that preside there. We offer Yearly Oblations for the Dead, in Honour of the Martyrs. We believe that it is not lawful to Fast on a Sunday, and to pray to God kneeling. From Easter to Whitsontide we enjoy the same Priviledge. We take great Care not to suffer any Part of the Wine and Consecrated Bread to fall to the Ground. We often Sign our selves with the Sign of the Cross; if you demand a Law for these Practises, taken from the Scripture, we cannot find one there; but we must answer, That 'tis Tradition that has established them, Custom that has authorized them, and Faith that has made them to be observed.

The Book concerning Flight in time of Persecution, is a further Mark of the Extream Rigour of Ter∣tullian, for there he maintains, That it is absolutely Prohibited to Fly in time of Persecution, or to give Money not to be Persecuted.

The Book De Pallio, is a small Treatise, wherein he endeavours to prove, that he had reason to quit the Toga, or the long Roman Gown, and to wear a Cloak; he shews therein a great deal of Wit and Learning, and it seems as if he Composed it, rather to shew what he was capable of saying upon so trivial a Subject as this is, than seriously to defend the Action.

In his Book concerning Publick Sights and Spectacles, he dissuades the Christians from those Sights and Spectacles, shewing how these Pleasures are both shameful and dangerous to those who have Re∣nounced the Pomps and Pleasures of the World, and Idolatry.

There is no need of giving the Reasons why he wrote those Books concerning the Ornaments and Dresses of Women, since the Titles themselves do sufficiently shew against what Abuse they were writ∣ten: So likewise the Title of the Book, that Virgins ought to be Veiled, does discover the Subject; but we are not to understand it only of Virgins Consecrated to God; for Tertullian's Design is to prove, that young Women should be Veiled, that is to say, that they should have their Face covered in the Church: Which he undertakes to prove, contrary to the Custom of his Country, where only marri∣ed Women were veiled. And upon this Account he speaks against this Custom; and maintains, that it cannot prescribe against Truth; which is true, when it relates to Doctrine, but not when it con∣cerns only a Matter of Discipline, which is but of little Consequence.

In the First Book written to his Wife, he Exhorts her not to Marry again; and in the Second, he Advises her, that in case she will Marry again, to take a Christian for her Husband.

The Treatise of Patience is an excellent Exhortation to the Practice of this Virtue: In which Dis∣course, Tertullian sets forth with a great deal of Eloquence, all the Motives and Arguments which might induce Christians to Patience, and dissuade them from Impatience.

The Discourse directed to the Confessors whom he calls Martyrs according to the ancient way of speak∣ing, is likewise a very powerful Exhortation to those who were in Prison upon the Account of the Religi∣on of Jesus Christ, to encourage them to bear with Patience their Chains and Torments, and to perse∣vere with Constancy to the End; nothing can be more Pathetical and Moving than this little Discourse.

I have now nothing more to do, but to speak of those Books which Tertullian Composed against the Church, in Defence of the Montanists, and they are Four: His Book of Modesty, of Monogamy, an Exhortation to Chastity, and A Treatise of Fasts. In his Book of Modesty, he endeavours to prove against the Church, that it has no Power to Remit the Sins of Fornicators and Adulterers, and that when Men are once fallen into these Crimes after Baptism, they cannot be any more admitted into the Communion of the Church, how Penitent soever they may be. In his Book of Monogamy, and the Exhortation to Chastity, he absolutely condemns second Marriages, as being Adultery. Lastly, In his Discourse of Fasts, he commends the Excessive Fasts of the Montanists, who made several Lents, observing the Stationary Fasts, as if they had been expresly enjoyned, making them to continue till Night, and not eating upon those Days any thing but Bread and Fruits, nor drinking any thing but Water. In all these Books, excepting his Book of Exhortation to Chastity, he formally attacks the Church, and the Catholicks, whom he calls Psychici, and speaks every where very advantageously of Montanus and his Prophetesses, believing that the Holy Ghost had inspired them to set up and esta∣blish a more perfect Discipline. For as to what relates to the Rule of Faith, that is to say, to the principal Doctrines of Religion, Tertullian and the first Montanists were of the same Opinion with the Church: And therefore it is, that in this Book against Praxeas, he says, that he always believed in One only God, in three Persons, and that he still believes it more firmly, since he has been in∣structed by the Paraclete or Comforter: And in his Book which he wrote, to prove that Virgins ought to be Veil'd, he says, that excepting the Rule of Faith, which is immoveable, and can no ways be changed, Manners and Customs that relate to Matter of Discipline may be reformed and

altered. That it is this which the Paraclet has done by the Ministry of Montanus, who has in∣structed Men in a much more perfect Discipline than that which the Apostles had taught them, that Ju∣stice was with him in the Cradle while he was an Infant: That the Law and the Prophets were as it were the Infancy, that the Gospel was as it were the Youth, but that there was no compleat Per∣fection to be found, but in the Instructions of the Holy Ghost, who spake by Montanus; for Tertulli∣an and the first Montanists do not believe that Montanus was the Holy Ghost, but only that the Holy Ghost had inspired him, and sent him to Reform and Perfect the Discipline of the Church; and they did not attribute this Priviledge only to Montanus, but also to several of his Disciples, and prin∣cipally to Women; and they would have it believed, that there were among them several Persons who had Revelations, and prophesied Things to come. These Persons were sometimes strangely agi∣tated, sometimes they fell into an Extasie. This Sect gave a respectful Attention to all that they said, either while they were thus agitated, or after they came to themselves, as it was believed that these were so many Revelations, of which it was not lawful to make any doubt; they allowed them to speak in their Assemblies when they would, and they believed that they had more Power and Au∣thority than Priests and Bishops. And this was the Reason that there was but very little Order and Rule observed in their Assemblies. But as to other things, they practised a very severe and austere Discipline; they for ever condemned not only those, who after their Baptism had committed Mur∣der or Idolatry, but also those who had fallen into Fornication and Adultery, to ••ye under a per∣petual Excommunication; They imposed new Fasts, and observed them very strictly, eating nothing but Bread and Fruits. They Condemned second Marriages; and they believed that it was not law∣ful to flee in Times of Persecution. As soon as ever this Sect appeared in the World, it deluded a great many Christians by that outward Shew of Perfection and Sanctity which it carried along with it. For on the one hand, the Austerity of their Lives added Weight and Credit to their Revelari∣ons; and on the other hand, their Revelations caused their Discipline to be embraced. Several good Men were immediately brought into the Snare, and in a short time we find the Churches of Phrygia, and afterwards other Churches divided upon the Account of these new Prophesies. Even the Bishop of Rome himself was imposed upon by them, and granted them Communicatory Letters, which he presently Revoked, being sensible of his Error. The Christians of the Church of France were more circumspect as to this Matter, and wrote to Pope Victor and the Churches of Asia concerning these new Prophesies, giving such a Judgment of them as was very discreet and agreeable to the Faith; as Eusebius tells us: But we do not certainly know what it was that they wrote, though it is very like∣ly that they disapproved of these new Revelations, wishing nevertheless, that they would treat with Gentleness and Moderation, those who had suffered themselves to be surprized by Error, that so they might be induced to return into the Bosom of the Church. At length the Bishops of Asia having met together several times, to examine these new Prophesies, considering of what Consequence it was to put a Stop to their farther Progress, Condemned them, and Excommunicated as well those who were the Authors of them, as those that followed them. And this is all that I thought necessa∣ry to say concerning the Sect of the Montanists, and the Condition in which it was in Tertullian's time. We will now return to our Author, and speak of his Genius, his Style, and the Judg∣ment that ought to be passed upon his Writings.

He was of a very quick, sprightly, and sharp Temper, but he had not all that Exactness and Clearness that might have been wished. There is very often more Glittering then Solidity in his Rea∣sonings: He rather strikes and dazles by his bold Expressions, than convinces by the Force of his Arguments. His Thoughts are far fetch'd, and sometimes lofty enough; the Turn which he gives them is high, but not very natural. He oftentimes stretches things too far. He is warm, and transported al∣most upon every thing. He is full of Figures and Hyperboles. He was very well furnished with Know∣ledge and Learning, which he sufficiently knew how to make use of to good purpose. His Excellency consisted in Satyr, his Jests are very ingenious and biting. He attack'd his Adversaries very cunningly, and overthrew them by a multitude of Reasons; which are interwoven, and, as it were, linked one within another. Lastly, If he does not persuade by his Reasonings, he at least forces Consent by that pompous way of Expression whereby he sets them out. His Style is Concise, his Expressions Em∣phatical, and there are in his Writings almost as many Sentences as Words. Yet Lactantius had rea∣son to take notice of three considerable Defects in him.

Tertullian, says he, was very well vers'd in the fine Learning, but his Style is neither fluent nor polite, but very obscure.

In loquendo parum facilis, parum comtus, & multum obscurus. These three Faults in Style are common to him, with the greatest part of the African Writers kk 1.321 but we may say, that they are in a very high Degree in Tertullian, and that there is not any Writer, whose Style is more harsh, less polite, and more obscure than his. All his Works are subject to these Defects, some more, and some less. He is more clear and concise in his Polemical Discourses, more obscure and harder in his common Places; as in the Book De Pallio, which is one of the obscurest Pieces of Antiquity. His Book of Pennance is the most Polite of all. The most excellent, and the usefullest of his Works, are, his Apology, the Praescriptions. his Books of Pennance, of Baptism, of Prayer, and his Exhortations to Patience, and to Martyrdom.

After what we have said already, it is an easie matter to judge the true Character of Tertullian; But it is not so easie to determine, whether he be more to be commended, or Blamed: For first of all, if we were to make a Judgment, in relation to the Service which he did the Church, it would be diffi∣cult to say, whether he has done more Hurt or Good. For on the one hand, he vigorously defended its Doctrine against several Hereticks, he maintained in some of his Works very considerable Points

relating to Discipline; and la••tly, he all along Established an e••cellent Morality: Buton the other hand, besides that he always had several Errors, he formerly opposed the Discipline of the Church af∣ter he separated from it. And if we judge in the second Place by the Temper of the Man, there is so much of Good and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in it, that we cannot tell which of the two ought to carry it. Lastly, If we make a Judgment of him by his Style, we cannot tell whether he is to be Commended for what he has that is Great and Surprizing, or to be Blamed, because of its other Defects and Imperfections. And thus Learned Men have always been, and are still extreamly divided ll 1.322 in the Judgments which

they have given, and which they still give of this Author; which makes me believe, that it is better to commend the Good, and to blame what is amiss, than to pretend to make an absolute Judgment, which would be always subject to a thousand Disputes.

In the last place, to speak briefly of the Editions of Tertullian, there has hardly been any Author of•…•…er Printed, and upon whom more Persons have bestowed their Pains. For which, two Reasons may be given, the Corruption of the Manuscripts, and his Obscurity, and these two Reasons are like∣wise the cause one of the other; for his Obscurity induced the Transcribers, who did not understand him, to alter some Words, that they might make such a Sense as they themselves understood: And the Corruptions of these Transcribers have been so far from clearing his Meaning, that they have rendered it still more Obscure; Which has been the occasion that this Author has given so much Trouble to all those that have hitherto set out any Editions of any part of his Works.

Rhenanus was the first who published Tertullian's Works, which were first Printed at Basil in the year 1521. from two Manuscripts which he had got out of two Abbeys in Germany; and the second time in the year 1528. I have a great Esteem for the Arguments and Notes, which this excellent Person, who was very well vers'd in all Parts of Learning, and in Ecclesiastical Antiquity, has put at the beginning of the greatest part of Tertullian's Works: And I think that no Man has laboured more successfully than he in the Explication of this Author; and that Rigaltius has very well observed, that Rhenanus wanted nothing to have made his Work compleat, but more Manuscripts. Yet his Notes have been Censured by the Spanish Inquisition, and they have been put at Rome in the Index Expurga∣torius, because of some Remarks which were a little too free upon the Abuses that were common in his time: But this ought not to diminish the Esteem we ought to have for him. We likewise find Edi∣tions of Tertullian, printed at Basil in the years 1525, 1536, 1539. But they are plainly Copies of the first Edition, wherein nothing is altered but the year. The third Edition of Rhenanus is the best, it was Printed at Basil in Folio in the year 1550. In this Edition, there are some Books corrected by Gelenius out of a Manuscript from England. The fourth was likewise Printed at Basil in 1562. The fifth is of Paris, Printed by Guillard in 1545. The sixth was Printed upon a very curious Letter in the year 1566, Printed at Paris in two Volumes in Octavo, for Volchelus, and Audoenus Parvus. Lau∣rentius de la Barre set forth a new Edition of Tertullian, Printed at Paris in 1580. Then Pamelius Published Tertullian with new Commentaries: His first Edition was in the year 1579, Printed at Ant∣werp. It was followed afterwards by that of 1583, Printed at Paris for Sonnius; and it was after∣wards Printed at Antwerp by Plantin in 1584; at Heydelberg for Commelin in 1596, and 1599; at Cologne in 1617; at Geneva in 1597, 1601, 1607; at Zurich by Belley in 1657; at Paris in 1608, in 1616, in 1634, in 1658, in 1664; and at Roan in 1662. The Commentaries of this Author are both Learned and Useful, but he digresses too much from his Subject, and he often brings in things, which are of no use for the understanding of his Author. Tertullian's Works have been likewise Printed according to Pamelius's Edition with Jimius's Notes, at Franeker in 1597. In the year 1627, Rigal∣tius Printed nine Treatises of Tertullian at Paris in Octavo, more Correct, from a Manuscript pre∣sented by Agobardus, who lived in the Ninth Century, to the Church of Lions, whereof he was Bishop, and he collated it with the various Readings of a Manuscript of Mousieur Montchal. In 1584, Latinus Latinius published his Conjectures to restore some Places of Tertullian, which he pretended were cor∣rupted. Pancirollus also had taken pains upon Tertullian, but he published nothing. Fulvius Ursinus Collected several various Readings from Manuscripts, and put them in the Margin of one of Pamelius's Editions of Tertullian which Rigaltius used. Johannes Woërus has likewise made some Notes upon Tertullian, as well as Albaspinaeus, who wrote several upon some Passages relating to Discipline and Penance. Pithaeus, Mercerus, Junius, Salmasius, Richerius, Theodorus Marsilius, and some others, have made Remarks upon his Book De Pallio, Printed separately at Paris in 1576, and 1594, with Junius's Notes; In 1600, with those of Salmasius; In 1625, Jacobus Gothofredus published from the Manuscript of Agobardus the two Books to the Nations, which were never Printed before. They were Printed at Geneva for Choiiet, together with the Commentaries of that Learned Lawyer.

La Cerda the Jesuit undertook to make a Continued Commentary upon Tertullian's Works, more ample than those which had been hitherto made: He began this Work, and caused two Volumes of it to be Printed at Paris in 1624, in 1630, and 1641; but he never finished it, and his Commentaries are only upon part of Tertullian's Books; and besides they are long and tedious, because he explains several things which need no Explication, and he very often leaves his Subject.

After all these, the Learned Rigaltius having Revised Tertullian's Works from the Manuscript of Agoba••dus, and making use of the various Readings Collected by Ursinus, Pithaeus, and Junius, pub∣lished the Text of Tertullian more Correct in very many places, and added some short Notes, to exa∣mine which of the two Readings is the truest, to reject or confirm some Conjectures, and to explain the most Difficult and Uncommon Words; And he has annexed at the end longer Observations, to explain the difficult Passages, or to clear some ancient Practi••es; or lastly, to discover some Point of Learning which was more difficult to be cleared.

Where, if, says he, you find any Opinions that are a little too free, as about the Confession of Secret Sins, about the Face of Jesus, (which he believes was not at all Comely, grounding it upon the Testimony of Tertullian, and some others of the An∣cients) and upon the Wax-Tapers which are lighted up in the Churches in the Day-time, you must not think that I have taken notice of them any otherwise, than as they were necessary to explain Tertullian's Notions, and not any ways to reprehend the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, or to disapprove of the Opinions of those Fathers, who lived after his time.

Words by which Rigaltius endeavours to excuse those Opinions, which were too freely inserted sometimes by him in his Notes,

as well upon St. Cyprian as Tertullian; But I do not know whether this Excuse will satisfie every Body, for it must be confessed, that there are some places, wherein he sufficiently shews, that he speaks ac∣cording to his own Opinion, rather than according to that of his Author, and in which he even digresses from his Subject, to make Observations which are sometimes not very agreeable to the present Pra∣ctice of the Church: But though we might have some reason to tax some of his Notes as to what re∣lates to Divinity; yet we must confess on the other side, that the Notes and Remarks which he has made relating to Criticism, Grammar, and the Explication of some difficult Passages of Tertullian, are very excellent. However he is generally blamed for being too bold in his Conjectures, and that he has not been exact enough in Revising his Author from ancient Manuscripts; And lastly, that he has inser∣ted his Conjectures, and other Mens into the Text, without the Authority of any Manuscripts.

The Bookseller, who Printed the Tertullian of Rigaltius in 1634, being willing to make the Work as Compleat as he could, Printed in 1635, in a Volume by it self, the Notes and Commentaries of those who had taken Pains upon Tertullian before him, that so we might have all that had been done upon this Author, excepting the Commentaries of La Cerda. This Volume joyned to the Edition of Rigaltius's Tertullian of 1634, which was afterwards Reprinted in 1641, is the perfectest Edition of this Author.

It has been since Printed in 1664, which is not so large, but more Commodious, wherein they have put in the Margin the entire Notes and Observations of Rigaltius, together with others selected from those of Rhenanus, Pamelius, Albaspinaeus, La Cerda, and Salmasius, &c. together with the Corrections of Mercerus. Priorius, who had the Care of this Edition, has put at the beginning a Preface, which he calls, A Discourse concerning the Life and Errors of Tertullian, that is not exactly done, any more than this Authors Notes; which have not found a General Esteem among the Learned.

I do not speak of the Edition of Tertullian published by Father George, which he caused to be Printed at Paris in 1648, and 1650, in three great Volumes, which he has Entituled Tertullianus Redivivu••, because there is nothing in this Edition worth taking notice of; and those long and tedious Com∣mentaries which this Capuchin has made, can be of no advantage to the Ignorant, nor of any use to the Learned.

It would be a desirable thing to have a new Edition of Tertullian Printed, the Text whereof should be exactly agreeable to the best Manuscripts, without inserting the Conjectures of particular Persons. And they ought likewise to add a Choice Collection of those Notes which are the most useful, taken from all the Commentators; And lastly, they should not range the Books according to the Order of Time, but according to the Order of the Matters, as we have done in giving an Abridgment of the Books, and to prefix at the beginning, The Life of Tertullian, and a Criticism upon his Writings; like that which we have done here in French, but larger, and more exact.

CAIUS.

CAIUS a Priest of the Church of Rome a 1.324, lived in the time of the Popes Zephirin and Victor that is to say under the Emperors Severus and Antonius. He wrote a Treatise by way of Dialogue b 1.325 against a famous Montanist called Proclus or Proculus c 1.326, wherein he repre∣hended, * 1.327 and accused this Heretick for giving credit too rashly to those new Prophecies, and at the same time confuted his Reasons. Eusebius speaks of this Treatise in three Places: The first is in Chap. 25. of the Second Book of his History, where he quotes a Fragment of it relating to the Sepulchers of S. Peter and S. Paul, which were to be seen at Rome in this Authors time. The second is in Chap. 28. of the third Book, where he speaks of the Heretick Cerinthus in these Terms.

Cerin∣thus tells us in some Revelations which he had written, as if he had been a great Apostle, prodigious Things, which, as he said, he had learn't from the Angels, assuring us, That after the Resurrection, Christ should have an Earthly Kingdom, and that Men should live in Jerusalem, where they should enjoy Carnal and Sensual Pleasures, and spend a Thousand years in continual Marriages and Jollity.

The third place wherein Eusebius speaks of Caius is in his Sixth Book, Chap. 20. where he says, that Caius condemning the Boldness by which the Enemies of the Church do counterfeit some Books of Scripture, reckons but 13 Epistles of S. Paul, not counting that which was written to the Hebrews among the number of this Apostles Writings. Lastly the same Eusebius in his Third Book, Chap. 21. recites some Words relating to the Daughters of Philip the Deacon, taken from this Author's Dialogue.

Eusebius and S. Jerome make no mention of the other Works of Caius, but the Learned Photius tells us, That he had likewise composed a Treatise against the Heresie of Artemon, who believed that Jesus Christ was only a meer Man, and that he was the Author of a Book Entituled, The Little Labyrinth d 1.328, from whence Eusebius has taken the Passage concerning the Penance of Natalis. Photius likewise at∣tributes to him a Treatise Of the Universe, or Of the Nature of the Universe, or of the Causes thereof, which went in his time under the Name of Josephus; Let us see what he says of it.

This Work con∣tains two little Books, wherein he shews that Plato contradicts himself; he convinces the Philosopher Alcinous e 1.329 of several Falsities and Absurdities concerning Matter and the Resurrection; he opposes his own Opinions to those of this Philosopher, and shews that the Jews are a much more ancient Peo∣ple than the Greeks; he believes that Man was compounded of Fire, Earth, and Water, and of a Spirit which is called the Soul, of which he speaks in these Terms: God has form'd this Spirit to∣gether with the Body, and taking the principal part from thence, he has caused it to penetrate and fill up all it's Members; so that extending it self throughout the whole Body, he has taken the form from thence; but it is of a colder nature than Matter, of which the Body is compounded. This Opinion which supposes that the Soul is Corporeal, (if nevertheless he acknowledges no other Soul in a Man than this Spirit) this Opinion, I say, is quite different from the Doctrine of the Hebrews, and does not agree with the greatness of his other Notions. To conclude, as the same Photius adds, (from whom we have only translated his words) he speaks of Jesus after a very Orthodox Manner.

For he calls him Christ, and speaks of his ineffable Generation from the Father, after such a manner as is no ways to be reprehended; which gives us occasion to doubt whether this be the Work of Jo∣sephus or not; though the Style very much resembles that of this Historian. He adds also afterwards, that he has found and observed that this Book was written by Caius Author of the Labyrinth; but that not bearing the Name of it's Author, some have attributed it to Justin Martyr, others to Irenaeus; though in reality it was composed by Caius. The Proof which he brings for it, is, That the Author of the Labyrinth, whom he believes to be Caius, says, towards the end, that he was the Author of the Book concerning the Nature of the Universe; but this Argument is not absolutely convincing. For it is not certain, that Caius was the Author of the Book of the Labyrinth, which some have attributed to Origen, and 'tis likely enough, that there might be two several Books of different Authors, which might have very near the same Title.

HIPPOLITUS.

HIPPOLITUS, who was according to the Relation of some, Bishop of Ostia in Italy a 1.330, and according to others Metropolitan of Arabia, suffered Martyrdom b 1.331, under the Reign of * 1.332 the Emperor Alexander. He made himself considerable by the Commentaries which he Composed upon the Holy Scripture c 1.333. Eusebius and S. Jerom assure us, that he had written upon the Six days Work, upon Genesis, Exodus, the Canticles, the Psalms, the Prophet Za∣chary, the Prophet Isaiah, upon some places of Ezechiel, upon Daniel, the Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and the Apocalypse; and that he Composed Two Treatises, the One concerning Saul, and the other concern∣ing the Witch of Endor. Besides these Works upon the Scripture, he likewise wrote a Treatise con∣cerning

Anti-Christ, a Discourse concerning the Resurrection, a Work against all the Heresies, and one in particular against that of Marcion; a Discourse concerning Easter, wherein he has given a kind of Chro∣nicle, to the First Year of the Emperor Alexander; and a Paschal Cycle for Sixteen years. He like∣wise made one or more Homilies in the Praise of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which he recited in the Presence of Origen, who followed and imitated him in the Works, which he composed upon the Ho∣ly Scripture. There is a Catalogue of his Works upon the side of a Statue found near Rome, where his Paschal Cycle was affixt; several Books are here omitted, mentioned by Eusebius and S. Jerom; but there are others, d 1.334 of which they have not spoken: The Catalogue is this. The Works of Hippoli∣tus, upon the Penitential Psalms, concerning the Witch of Endor, upon the Gospel of S. John, and the Apo∣calypse, concerning the Gifts of God. Apostolical Tradition, a Chronicle, a Book written to the Greeks, a∣nother upon Plato, or concerning the World, an Exhortation to Severina, a Demonstration of the Time of Easter in a Table, Odes upon the whole Scripture, a Discourse of God, of the Resurrection of the Flesh, of Good, and from whence Evil proceeds. This Catalogue does not appear to me, to be so faithful and ex∣act, as that of Eusebius and S. Jerom, who own besides, as well as Honorius Augustodun••nsis after them, that Hippolitus writ several other Treatises, whereof they had not any Knowledge. And we have now almost entirely lost, even those of which Eusebius and S. Jerom have given the Catalogue.

There goes indeed under his Name, a small Discourse, Printed at Paris in Greek, with the Version of Picus Mirandula, in the Year 1557, and afterwards in 1660, and inserted into the Bibliotheca Patrum, with this Title; Of the end of the World, Anti-Christ, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But it is ve∣ry uncertain, whether this be the Treatise of Anti-Christ e 1.335 attributed to Hippolitus, and mentioned by Eusebius. The Title being different from that related by Eusebius; the Style mean and Childish: And Lastly, The Fables and Falshoods which it contains, give us sufficient Ground to doubt it. There is another Treatise of Christ and Anti-Christ, which bears the Name of Hippolitus, published in Greek by Gudius, which Father Combefis has caused to be Printed in Greek and Latin, in the last Volume of the Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum. Though this Treatise be more ancient than that which was published before under Hippolitus's Name, yet does it not appear to me worthy of this Author. Those that read the Commentary upon the History of Susanna, and the Greek Fragment upon Daniel, which are Printed in the same Place, will pass the same Judgment upon them.

The Demonstration against the Jews, publisht in Latin by Turrianus, and inserted by Possevinus into his Apparatus, is a Fragment of some Homily, or of some other Book of that Nature. It is not cer∣tain, whether it be written by Hippolitus. There was found at Basil, a Treatise upon the Apocalypse, attributed to Hippolitus; but it is doubted whether it be his, because of the meanness of the Style, and the little Learning there is in it, as Sixtus Senensis has observed. The Collections, or rather the Extracts taken by Anastasius the Library-Keeper, out of the Sermons of Hippolitus, upon some Points of Divinity, and upon the Incarnation, against Bero and Helix, Hereticks of the Sect of the Valentini∣ans, published by Turrianus and Canisius, and related in Greek by Anastasius, in his Collections set forth by Sirmondus, seem to be very ancient; but it is not certain whether they belong to Hippolitus. We must make the same Judgment of the Homily, Entituled, Of One Onely God in Three Persons, and of the Incarnation, against the Heresie of Noetus, which is published hy Vossius, with the Works of Gregorius Thaumaturgus; but though it was not really written by Hippolitus, yet it contains the Princi∣ples of the Ancients concerning the Trinity. f 1.336

That little Work, Of the Lives of the Twelve Apostles, which Father Combefis caused to be printed from a Manuscript in the King's Library, in his Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum, is not Hippoli∣tus's, and contains several Fictions of the modern Greeks, g 1.337 relating to the Deaths of the Apostles.

We must say the same of a Book written much upon the like Subject, concerning the Seventy two Disciples h 1.338 of Jesus Christ, which was in the Library of Cardinal Sirletus, which Baronius mentions in his Notes upon the Martyrology upon the Ninth Day of April.

Photius had read Hippolitus's Book against the Hereticks, and gives us this Account of it.

I have read the little Book of Hippolitus, who was Disciple of S. Irenaeus, against Two and thirty Here∣sies: He begins with the Dositheans, and he goes on as far as Noetus and the Noetians. He says that all these Heresies have been confuted by S. Irenaeus, and that he has Collected in this little Book; the Reasonings and Arguments of this Father. His Discourse is clear and serious, and he says nothing but what is to the purpose, though he has not all the Beauties of the Attick Style. He affirms, some things which are not true, and amongst others, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by S. Paul. It is said, that he made several Homilies to the People, as well as Origen, who was his Friend, and that he wrote several other Books.

The same Author, in another place, mentions the Commenta∣ry of Hippolitus upon Daniel.

He says, That though he does not litterally explain this Prophet, yet he does not let slip any part of his Sense, that is considerable, that he interprets things according to the manner of the Ancients, and not with that Exactness which has been since observed; but that he is not to be censured for that, because it is not reasonable to expect from those who lay the Foun∣dation of any Science, that they should omit nothing that might be said upon it; but on the contra∣ry, we ought to commend them, because they were the first Discoverers, for those Things which they first found out: That as for the rest, Hippolitus was mistaken, in pretending to fix the time of the End of the World, and of the coming of Anti-Christ, which Christ would not discover to his Disciples, even then when they desired it of him very earnestly. He pretended, says he, to fix it five hundred years after the Death of Christ, as if the World was to last but Six thousand years; which is too nice a Subtilty. His way of writing is clear and plain, and very proper for a Commentary, though he departs from the Rules, and the Purity of the Attick Dialect. We have likewise a Ho∣mily which he made concerning Jesus Christ and Anti-Christ, wherein, though he follows the same way of Writing, yet he is more plain, and savours more of Antiquity.

And these Passages of Pho∣tius, do not only discover the Subject of those Works of Hippolitus which he had read, but also the Style and Character of this Author.

The Paschal Cycle for Sixteen years, composed by Hippolitus, whereof Anatolius, Eusebius, S. Je∣rom and Victorius have made mention, was found round about a Marble Statue, that was dug out of the Ground in the Year 1551, near Rome, i 1.339 and carried into the Vatican Library; and afterwards it

was published by Gruter, by Scaliger, and by Bucherius; who caused it to be Printed, together with the Cycle of Victorius of Aquitain, in the Year 1633. Mabilion observes in his Voyage into Italy, that he saw at Rome in Cardinal Chigy's Library, an Ancient Greek Ma∣nuscript, * 1.343 containing the four great Prophets, wherein there is a Commentary of Hippo∣litus upon the Dream of Nab•…•….

Lastly, Theodoret quotes and produces some considerable Fragments of Hippolitus, k 1.344 concerning the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, taken from several of his Homilies, and from his other Treatises upon the Holy Scriptures.

GEMINIANUS or GEMINUS.

WE joyn Geminianus, or Geminus a 1.345, a Priest of Antioch to Hippolitus the Martyr, because they both flourisht under the Reign of Alexander, and because he is spoken of in * 1.346 Eusebius's Chronicon in the same place, where Hippolitus is mentioned. We know nothing of the Works of this Author. Only S. Jerom assures us, that he left behind him some Pieces, which were Monuments of his Parts.

ALEXANDER.

ALexander, a Bishop in Cappadocia, being come to Jerusalem, to visit the Holy Places that are there, when Narcissus, who governed that Church, was not capable himself alone, by rea∣son * 1.347 of his great Age, to discharge all the Duties of the Episcopal Office; the Christians of of that City retained Alexander, and made him his Coadjutor, by the Consent of the Bi∣shops of the neighbouring Churches. It is said that they had a Revelation, and heard a Voice, ad∣vising them to chuse him Bishop; and indeed there needed nothing less than a Miracle, to authorize an Election so extraordinary as this a 1.348 and for which there had yet been no President. He governed this Church joyntly with Narcissus, as his Colleague. See what he says of it at the Conclusion of a Letter written to the Antinoites.

Narcissus, who held before me the Episcopal See, and who is now united b 1.349 with me in Prayers, being a hundred and sixteen years old, sends you Greeting, and ex∣horts you to be all of one and the same Mind.

Alexander being in Prison in the time of the Persecution under Severus, wrote likewise a Letter to those of Antioch, wherein he Congratulates them upon the Ordination of Asclepiades, who succeeded Serapion in that See: He sent this Letter by Clemens, as it is believed of Alexandria. c 1.350 Besides, he wrote a Letter to Origen, of which Eusebius recites a Fragment in the 14th Chapter of the 6th Book of his History, where he says, that he was a Friend of Pantaenus, and of Clement of Alexandria, and that these men made him acquainted with Origen. And last of all, he sent a Letter to Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, which he wrote along with Theoctristus, Bishop of Caesarea, in favour of Origen, wherein he proves by several Examples, that Bishops may invite those that are proper for instructing the People, to Preach in their Presence: He wrote besides several other Letters, of which we have nothing remaining. He suffered Martyrdom at Caesarea in the time of the Persecution, under the Em∣peror Decius.

JULIUS AFRICANUS.

JUlius Africanus, who was of Palestine, a 1.351 though older than Origen, b 1.352 is believed to have been the Disciple of Heraclas, because being drawn by his Reputation, he came to Alexandria to confer * 1.353 with him. c 1.354 He was deputed by the Emperor Alexander, d 1.355 to cause the City of Emmanus to be repaired, which was afterwards called Nicopolis. He particularly applied himself to Chrono∣logy and History, and composed an exact Chronicle, e 1.356 divided into five Books, from the Beginning of the World, to the Third Year of the Reign of Heliogabalus, f 1.357 wherein he gave a brief Account of the most remarkable Accidents from the beginning of the World, to the time Jesus Christ, and re∣lated in few Words all that had happened since Christ's Time, to that wherein he wrote. We have not this famous Work at present under Africanus's Name. But Eusebius has inserted it almost entire in his Chronicon, altering and adding some few things, and Correcting some of his Mistakes. We have still some of his Fragments in two Works, publisht by Scaliger, of which one is Latin, and is called Chronological Extracts, taken out of Eusebius and Africanus; and the other is Greek, and Enti∣tuled, A Collection of Histories.

Besides this Chronicle, he wrote two Letters upon two important Questions relating to the Scri∣pture: The first directed to Aristides, was written to reconcile that seeming Contradiction which is found in the Account given of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ by S. Luke and S. Matthew. Eusebius gives us a considerable part of this Letter, in the First Chapter of the Seventh Book of his History. And in order to reconcile this Difference, he has recourse to that Law of Adoption, that took place among the Jews, and which obliged the Brothers to Marry their Brothers Wives who died without Children. He says then, that Matthan, who descended from David by Solomon, married a Wife named Estha, by whom he had Jacob: But that after the Death of Matthan, this same Woman mar∣ried Melchi (he should have said Matthat) who descended from David by Nathan, of whom she had a Son named Heli, and that so Heli and Jacob were Brothers by the Mothers-side; and that Heli dy∣ing without Children, Jacob was obliged to marry his Widow, of whom he had Joseph the Hus∣band of Mary, who was by Consequence natural Son to Jacob, and the Son of Heli according to the Law; and descended from Solomon by Jacob, and from Nathan by Heli. This way of reconciling the Evangelists, as to the Geneology of Jesus Christ, is very easie, and has hardly any Difficulty in it; but that every Body may readily comprehend it, we shall represent it in the following Table.

DAVID

SOLOMON, And his Descendants, re∣lated by S. Matthew.		NATHAN, And his Descendants, rela∣lated by S. Luke.
MATTHAN, The first Husband.	ESTHA, The Wife of both.	MELCHI, Or rather MATTHAT, The Second Husband.
JACOB, The Son of Matthan, the first Husband.	THEIR COMMON WIFE, Whose Name we do not know, First married to Heli, of whom she had no Children, and after∣wards to Jacob, his Bro∣ther.	HELY.
The Natural Son of Jacob.	JOSEPH.	The Son of Heli, according to the Law.

The Second Letter of Africanus, relating to the History of Susanna, was written to Origen, who had in a Conference cited the Prophet Daniel, to vindicate the Innocence of Susanna. Africanus writes to him, that he admires that he does not look upon this Part of Daniel as Fictitious, and that this whole History is no more than a Fable. The Reasons which he brings for this Opinion, are very Learned and Ingenious, and there was a Necessity for so great a Man as Origen to answer him; and yet it seems as if Africanus wrote to him, rather to be instructed in the Truth, than with any Design of Disputing against him.

There is likewise attributed to this Author, a Work Entituled, The Cesti, which is cited under his Name, not only by Suidas, and Sincellus; but likewise by Photius, and even by Eusebius, in the Sixth Book, Chapter 31, of his History: If that Passage, which is not to be found in Ruffinus's Ver∣sion, nor in S. Jerom, be not foisted in. But it is more likely, that this is the Work of another Africanus. g 1.358 We do not know whether he, of whom we speak, wrote any thing else, nor when he died.

MINUTIUS FELIX.

MInutius Felix, a famous Lawyer at Rome, a 1.359 who lived in the beginning of the Third Cen∣tury, b 1.360 wrote an excellent Dialogue, Entitulled Octavius, in defence of the Christian Re∣ligion. * 1.361 'Tis a Conference between a Christian, whom he calls Octavius, c 1.362 and a Hea∣then named Cecilius, where Minutius sets as Judge. Cecilius speaks first against the Christian Religion, and begins by laying down this Maxim, that every thing is uncertain and doubt∣ful,

and that therefore it is a great piece of Rashness, especially in the Christians, who are an igno∣rant and stupid sort of People, to pretend to establish their Opinions as certain and Infallible Truths That there being no Providence that governs the World, and all things being dubious, it is the best way to stick to the Religion of our Ancestors. That the Roman Empire was first established, and af∣terwards arrived to its present Height by the Religion of the Gods; that they never contemned the Omens and Presages of the Sooth-sayers, without repenting of it; and that their Oracles certainly foretold things that were really to come to pass. Afterwards he attacks the Religion of the Christi∣and in particular, he accuses them of worshipping an Asses Head, adoring Crosses, and other things which were yet more dishonorable. He upbraids them for those Crimes of which the Heathens them∣were justly accused; to wit, the Murthering of Children, the Committing of Incests. He reprehends in them as a Crime, that excessive Love which they had one for another. He finds fault with them, because they had no Temples, Altars, nor Statues. He tells them, that they can neither see them∣selves, nor shew to others that God whom they adore; that they feign that he sees all things, but that it is impossible that he should be able to take care of every particular thing, if he has the Charge of the whole Universe lying upon him. He pretends that it was to no purpose that the Jews adored and honoured this God. He scoffs at the Hopes of the Christians. He looks upon the Resurrection, Hell, and Heaven to be Fables, like those of the Poets. He says, that Men being necessarily Good or Evil, 'tis ridiculous to believe that God will punish or reward them for their Actions. He exa∣mines the Condition of the Christians in this Life, which is to be Poor, Ignorant, subject to Diseases, persecuted, exposed continually to Racks and Tortures:

Which shews, says he, that their God ei∣ther cannot, or will not relieve them, and by consequence that he is Impotent or Malicious.

That on the contrary, the Romans, who do not adore the God of the Christians, are not only Powerful, and Lords of the whole World; but they likewise enjoy all those Pleasures, from which the Christians are forced to abstain. He concludes by advising the Christians not to seek any more after Heavenly Things, and not to flatter themselves vainly with the Knowledge of them: maintaining that all things being uncertain and doubtful, it is better to suspend our Judgments, than to judge rashly, for fear of falling into Superstition, or utterly destroying all Religion. After some Reflexions of Minutius Fe∣lix, Octavius answering Cecilius's Discourse, observes how he has argued after a very inconstant man∣ner, sometimes admitting a Deity, and sometimes seeming to doubt thereof.

Which he has not done, says he, out of any Craft or Cunning, this sort of Artifice not suiting with his Candid and Frank Temper; but that has happened to him which usually happens to a Man who is Ignorant of the Way, when he sees several Paths, he stands in suspence, not daring to chuse any, and not being able to follow them all. In like manner, as he adds, he who has no certain Knowledge of the Truth, is always in doubt, and suffers himself to be led by the first Suspicion, without being able to stop him∣self. He afterwards reprehends all the Reasonings of Cecilius, and he answers every one in particu∣lar.

After having shewn that Poverty and Ignorance, which was upbraided to the Christians, could be no ways prejudicial to the Truth; he proves the Divine Providence, by the Order and Beauty which is seen in the Universe, and by the admirable Perfections of all the Creatures. And he shews, that it could be no other than God, who has created all things, governing them by his WORD, ruling them by his Wisdom, and bringing them to perfection by his Power: That he is not to be seen, because he is more subtile than the Sight: That he is not to be comprehended, because he is greater than all the Senses: That he is infinite and immense: That the Bounds of our Understanding are by much too shallow to have a perfect Knowledge of him: That it is only he who comprehends himself; that it is impossible to give him a Name suitable to his Perfections: And yet that all Men do naturally know him: That the People stretching out their Hands to Heaven, invoke only this God, and that the Prophets and Philoso∣phers have acknowledged him. He afterwards shews, that the Antiquity of their Fables ought not to give them any Authority: That they have not only so much as the least Appearance of Truth, but that they are Impertinent and Ridiculous, and that he must be void of common Sense, who gives any Cre∣dit to them: That we are not to attribute the Establishment, nor Encrease of the Empire, to the Religi∣on of the Romans, since it was founded at first by Parricide, and by the Rapes of strange Women, and that it afterwards grew to its Greatness by Uncleanness, by Sacriledge, and by unjust Wars: That very often their Commanders contemned the Auguries; and that nevertheless they were success∣ful in what they undertook: That the Answers of their Oracles were very often false and ambiguous, and that we are not to wonder, if by a great Chance they sometimes hit: That the Daemons, who are impure Spirits, made use of these Superstitions to destroy Mankind; and to set them at a greater Distance from God, after they were already lost by their Vices and disorderly Desires: That 'tis these Spirits who answer in their Statues, who possess Men, and agitate them so furiously; but be∣ing conjured by the Name of the only true God, they are obliged to go out of the Bodies of those whom they have tormented. He afterwards confutes the Calumnies wherewith they asperst the Christians: He says, That if it were true, they ought not to be compelled to deny their Religion, but rather to own those Incests, Impieties and Murders wherewith they were accused: That the Chri∣stians are too well instructed, to adore an Asses Head, and too Chast, to commit Uncleanness in the Celebration of their Mysteries: But that there is a Religion among the Heathens, in which they worshipped Beasts, and committed execrable Villanies without Punishment; that they are not the Christians, but the Heathens, who place their Hopes in mortal Men, and in inanimate Statues, and who were frequently guilty of Murders and Incests: That the Christians do neither adore nor desire Crosses, and that they are so far from shedding Man's Blood, that they dare not so much as to eat that of Beasts: That they are modest and reserved, not only in Body, but in Mind: That they com∣monly

Marry but once, and that they have no other Design in their Marriage, but the having of Children: That their Repasts are not only very Chast, but also very Sober: That there are several Christians who preserve a perpetual Continency, and yet without any Vanity upon that Account: That though they refuse to bear any Offices, yet they are not for all that of the Scum of the People: That their Number encreases continually, which is a certain sign of their Virtue: That they do not di∣stinguish themselves from others by any outward Mark, but by their Innocence and Modesty: That they love one another and call one another Brethren, because they have all one and the same God for their Father: That they have nither Statues, nor Altars, nor Temples, because the Majesty of God cannot he represented by Images, nor enclosed in Houses built by the Hands of Men, and that it is better to consecrate our Mind, and our Heart as his Temple. Nonne melius in nostra dedicandus est mente, in nostro Consecrandus Corpore? That the Sacrifices and Victims which he requirs, and which we ought to offer up unto him, are Justice, Purity and Innocence: That though God be invisible, yet he is discovered by his Omnipotence: That he knows all things, and nothing can be concealed from him: That he protected the Jews so long as they honoured him; and 'twas only for their Sins that they have drawn upon themselves his Anger and Vengeance. After having thus diso•…•…sed▪ of the Object of the Christian Worship, he goes on to the Proof of the other Points of their Doctrine. He shews, that the Learned do agree, That the World shall have an End: That Pythagoras and Plato believed one part of the Resurrection when they taught the Immortality of the Soul, and the Metempsychosis: That it is not more difficult for God to raise up Men after their Death, than it was for, him to produce them out of nothing: That all the Revolutions of Nature are as so many Images of the Resurrection: That several had rather be annihilated for ever, than to rise again to endure E∣ternal Torments; and that they were confirmed in their Opinion by the Impunity which they en∣joyed in this Life: But that the Judgment of God will be by so much the more Rigorous, as it is slower in Punishing: That these Torments shall be excessive, and shall have neither End nor Bounds: That the Fire which shall burn the Body without consuming it, shall nourish it (if I may so say) and make it to subsist to all Eternity: That it is sufficient not to know God to be Condemned to suffer these Pains, because it is not a less Sin to be ignorant of him, then to offend him: But that the Heathens shall not be Punished only for this Ignorance of God, they being guilty of several Crimes; that they cannot excuse themselves by alledging Destiny, since Man is a free Agent, and that Destiny is nothing else but the Execution of God's Decrees, which are regulated according to Men's Actions: That that Poperty which is so frequent amongst the Christians, makes for their Glory; that the Evils and Persecutions which they suffered, are no Proof that God has forsaken them, but that he trys and purifies them: That it is a Spectacle well becoming God, to behold a Christian stoutly contending with Pain, stand∣ing firm and stedfast in the midst of Torments, insulting over his Executioners and Judges, freely re∣sisting even Princes and Emperors, and yielding only to God.

You exalt, says he, to the Skies, a Scevola, who after having missed of his Aim in killing a King, voluntarily lost his Hand, and saved his Life by this couragious Action. But how many Persons are there among us, who have suffered without Complaining, not only their Hand, but their whole Body to be burnt, though they could have delivered themselves from these Torments, had they pleased? What do I say? Even our Sons and our Daughters laugh at your Gibbets, at your wild Beasts, and at all your Punishments. And ought not this to convince you, that it is impossible that they would have endured these Pains to no purpose; or that they could be able to suffer them without God's Assistance? And do not think that those Persons are happy, who being utterly ignorant of God, are loaded with Honours and Riches. These are unfortunate Men, who are raised up, that their Downfall might be the greater, these are Victims which are fatened for the Sacrifice. For what solid Good can be had without God, since Death shews that all the rest is no more than a Dream? This being so, a Christian may indeed seem to be miserable, but can never be really so: Christianus videri potest miser, non potest esse.

He adds, that they abstain from Pleasures, from publick Sights, and from the Pomps of the World, because all these things are contrary to good Manners, and that their Life is more unblameable than that of the Philosophers, who seem to be wise by their Discourses, and by their outward Appearance, but were by no means sound at the Bottom.

After Octavius had thus answered all the Objections of Cecilius, the last acknowledges himself con∣vinced by his Arguments: I do not expect, says he, the Determination of our Arbitrator; we are equally victorious, Octavius triumphs over me, and I triumph over Error. I submit my self therefore to God, I acknowledge his Providence, and I do publickly declare, that the Religion of the Christians, among the Num∣ber of whom I place my self from this present, is the only way that discovers the Truth.

This Dialogue is Elegant, the Expressions are Select, the Words proper, the Turn agreeable, the Reasons are set forth to advantage, and beautified with a great deal of Learning. In a word, this small Treatise shews, as Lactantius has observed, that Minutius had been a very excellent Defender of Religion, and of the Truth, had he entirely applied himself to this Study. But this is rather the Production of one who would divert himself from Business, than a Book written with great Assiduity and Diligence. He flourishes upon his Subject without treating of it thoroughly. He takes more pains in shew∣ing how ridiculous the Opinions of the Heathens are, and in confuting them by their own Authors, than in explaining and proving the Doctrine of the Christians Besides, he does not appear to be very well skill∣ed in the Mysteries of Religion and he seems to have believed, that the Soul should die with the Body. d 1.363

This Discourse passed a long time for the Eighth Book of Arnobius; for it being found together with the seven Books of Arnobius in an ancient Manuscript of the Vatican Library, it was printed four times e 1.364 under his Name, before any Body knew its true Author. The Learned Lawyer Balduinus was the first that found out this vulgar Error, and caused this little Treatise to be printed by it self in the Year 1560, at Heidelberg, with a learned Preface, wherein he restores it to its true Author. But though we owe to this famous Lawyer the Honour of having first made this Discovery, yet 23 years after, Ursinus causing Arnobius's Works to be printed at Rome, whether he had not seen Baldui∣nus's Edition, or whether he had a mind to attribute all the Honour of this Observation to himself, separated this Book of Minutius from those of Arnobius, without taking any notice that it had been done before, ascribing to himself by this means the whole Credit of the Discovery. Some time af∣ter, in the year 1603, Wowerius caused it to be printed at Basil by Frobenius, with very useful Notes, for the understanding of this Author. In 1610, it was printed at Francfort in Octavo, accord∣ing to Balduinus's Edition. Afterwards Elmenborstius caused it to be printed at Hambourg with some new Observations, in the year 1612, adjoyning thereunto the Preface of Balduinus. The Year following, Heraldus the Lawyer published at Paris an Edition of Minutius in Quarto, which was more correct than the others. Lastly, Rigaltius revising it very diligently from a Manuscript in the King's Library, being the same which was in the Vatican, put it forth in the Year 1643, with very learned and curious Notes; and it was re-printed at Amsterdam in 1645, together with Julius Firmicus. This Edition of Rigaltius was followed in the Edition of S. Cyprian of 1666, to whose Notes they have added part of those of Wowerius, Elmen••orstius, Oizelius, and those lately made by Priorius. Lastly, All these Notes were printed together with the Text, after the manner which they call Variorum, in the Year 1672.

S. Hierom says, That in his Time there was a Book concerning Destiny attributed to Minutius Felix: but though this might be the Work of an eloquent Author, yet it was not written with the same Style with this Dialogue. It is true, that Cecilius promises in this Dialogue, to treat more largely of Destiny upon another occasion: but to tell whether he did it or no, or whether this Treatise that was extant in S. Hierom's Time, was the same which he promised, or rather, whether this Promise gave occasion to some other Author to forge a Discourse thereof under Minutius's Name, are things which we cannot positively determine.

AMMONIUS. * 1.365

AMMONIUS, a Christian Philosopher, the Master of Plotinus and Origen, a 1.366 flourished in Alexandria, b 1.367 where he publickly taught Philosophy in Alexander Severus's Reign. Porphy∣ry falsly accuses him for having quitted the Christian Religion, in which he had been edu∣cated: for it is certain, as Eusebius and S. Hierom observe, That he always continued sted∣fast in the Doctrine and Precepts of Christianity.

Witness, says Eusebius, those excellent Works that he has left behind him, which are so many authentick Monuments of his Faith and his Ability; as the Book intituled, The Agreement between Moses and Jesus Christ, and all the other Pieces which may be found in the Hands of studious Persons.

In the Number of these Works we may reckon a Gospel composed out of all the Four: which was a kind of Harmony and Concord which he had drawn up with a great deal of Pains and Study, as is testified by Eusebius in his Epistle to Carpianus, placed at the beginning of his Canons upon the Evangelists. Which has given occasion to S. Hierom to affirm, that Ammonius writ Canons like those of Eusebius. But they were not, properly speaking, Canons which Ammonius composed; for the Canons were no more than Indices of the Places of the Gospels, which are contained in One, Two, Three or Four of the Evangelists; whereas Ammo∣nius's Harmony or Concord contained the entire Text of the Four Evangelists, which Eusebius made use of in making his Canons, which referred to this Concord, and were a Table to it. Trithemius likewise attributes Canons to Ammonius, but they are those of Eusebius. We have at present in the Bibliotheca Patrum an Harmony of the Four Evangelists, falsly attributed to Tatianus by Victor of Ca∣pua; which Cardinal Baronius, Father Labbè, and several other Learned Men do ascribe to Ammoni∣us. It is certain, that this was not written by Tatianus, who retrenched the Genealogies of Jesus Christ, which are to be found in this Concord. It bears the Name of An Harmony, and it is ascribed in the Title to an Alexandrian, which made Baronius conjecture that it was written by this Ammoni∣us, who was of Alexandria, and whose Works bore the Title of an Harmony. Zacharias, Bishop of Chrysopolis, who lived in the Twelfth Century, and made Commentaries upon Ammonius's Harmony, has followed this word for Word, which confirms Baronius's Conjecture.

ORIGEN.

ORIGEN a 1.368 was born in the City of Alexandria, about the year 185, from the Birth of Christ. b 1.369 Besides the Name of Origen, he had moreover that of Adamantius. c 1.370 His Father, who * 1.371 was called Leonidas, educated him in the Faith of Jesus Christ, and did not only cause him in his Youth to learn the politer Learning, with all the profane Sciences, but he particu∣ly ordered him to apply himself to the understanding of the Holy Scripture, before any other kind of Learning, giving him every day some Portions thereof to learn and repeat. And it hapned very luckily, that the Son's Inclination exactly answered the Father's Design; for the pursued his Study with a most extraordinary Zeal and Fervency; and as he was endowed with a quick Apprehension, and very great Sagacity, he did not content himself with that Sense which at first view presented it self, but he afterwards endeavoured to dive into the mysterious and allegorical Explication of the Sacred Books, and sometimes would even puzzle his Father by asking him the meaning of some Passages of Scripture, which obliged this good Man seemingly to reprehend him, and to advise him not to soar above the reach of his Understanding, and to content himself with the most clear and na∣tural sense of the Scripture; though inwardly he was extreamly joyful, and returned Thanks unto God with all his Heart, for his great Mercy, in bestowing on him such a Son. But that these Opinions may not be attributed either to the blind Love of a Father for his Child, or to that Affection which Eufebius, who relates these things, had for Origen, it may be sufficient to observe, That S. Hierom, even then when he wrote against Origen, with the greatest Earnestness, was obliged to acknowledge, that he had been an extraordinary Person from his very Infancy Magnus vir ab infantiâ. Ep. 65. ad Pam∣machium de erroribus Origenis. When he was a little more advanced in Years, he had for his Master in Philosophy, the famous Ammonius, d 1.372 the Christian Philosopher; and in Divinity, the learned S. Clemens of Alexandria. He was not above sixteen or seventeen years of age, when the Persecution began at Alexandria, in the 10th Year of the Reign of Severus, and the 202d from the Birth of Christ. His Father being seized and imprisoned upon the account of the Christian Faith, he would also have offered himself to the Persecutors, out of the great Zeal he had to suffer Martyrdom; but his Mother opposed it very stiffly, and was even forced to hide his Cloaths, to prevent him from go∣ing abroad to put his Design in Execution: And being thus detained against his Will, he wrote a Let∣ter to his Father to exhort him to Martyrdom, wherein he expresses himself thus: Stand stedfast, my Father, and take care not to alter your Opinion upon our Account. Leonidas being animated by his Son's Exhortation, couragiously suffered Martyrdom, and was beheaded within a little while after. His Goods having been confiscated, Origen remaining with his Mother and Brethren, was reduced to ex∣tream Poverty; but a certain Lady of Alexandria, who was very rich, whether out of Compassion to his Misery, or out of the Respect she had for him, afforded him all kind of Assistance, and even took him into her House. There lived with her at the same time a famous Heretick of Antioch, whom she had adopted for her Son, who held Conferences in her House, where a great Number, not only of Hereticks, but also of Catholicks, were present. But though Origen was obliged of necessity to converse with this Man, yet he would never hold Communion with him in Prayer, keeping exact∣ly to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions, and testifying the Abhorrence that he had for the Doctrine of the Hereticks. However, in a little time he put himself into such a Condition, as not to stand any longer in need of his Ladies Assistance; for applying himself entirely, after his Father's Death, to the Study of Human Learning, he taught Grammar, and by his Employment he got a sufficient Compe∣tency to maintain himself.

Whilst he followed this Profession, the Chair of the School at Alexandria becoming vacant by the Retreat of S. Clement, and by the Flight of all those who were dispersed by the Persecution, some of the Heathens, who were willing to be converted, made their Application to him, though he was not then above eighteen years old. The two first of his Disciples were Plutarch, and Heraclas his Brother, who succeeded Demetrius in the See of Alexandria. At length, the Reputation and Number of those that were converted by him increasing every day more and more, Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, confirmed him in the Employment of Catechist, or Professor of Sacred Learning in the Church of Alex∣andria. When he saw himself setled in this Charge, he left of teaching Grammar, not being willing to depend upon any other Profession for his Subsistence: He sold all his Books that treated of hu∣man Learning, contenting himself with four Oboli a day, which were allowed him by the Person who purchased them.

And then it was that he began to lead a very strict and severe Life, which contributed no less than his Learning to attract to him a great number of Disciples, notwithstanding the Fury of the Persecu∣tion, which being then begun at Alexandria, under the Government of Laetus, continued still with greater Violence under Aquila his Successor. He had several of his Disciples there, who suffered Martyrdom in the same Place; among others, Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides, Hero, &c. And he was himself very often exposed to the Rage of the Heathens, when he went to the Assistance and Encou∣ragement of the Martyrs. He then carried his Austerities so far, as to commit an Act of thet Excess, as to be blamed even by those who have been his greatest Defenders, and which he himself afterwards condemned, though he might do it upon a good Motive, e 1.373 and out of an excessive Zeal for Charity. For as his Employment obliges him to be often with Women, whom he instructed as well as Men, that he might take away from the Heathens all pretence of Suspicion of any ill Conduct by reason of his Youth, he resolved with himself to execute to the Letter that Perfection which he was persuaded was proposed by Jesus Christ in these Words of the Gospel; That there are some who make themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. He was willing to keep this Action private, and did all he could to conceal it from his Friends: but it was presently discovered; and being come to the Knowledge of Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, he commended his Zeal, and the Fervency of his Faith, and bad him not be discouraged upon that Account, but to continue more earnestly in the Instruction of the Catechumens.

In the mean time, Origen's Reputation increased daily more and more, and procured him so great a Number of Disciples, that he himself alone was not able to manage it: and therefore he committed to his Friend Heraclas the Care of those who were to be instructed in the first Principles of Religion, reserving to himself such as were advanced to a higher Degree of Knowledge. It was about this time, in the beginning of the Reign of Antoninus, that he went to Rome, f 1.374 under the Pontificate of Ze∣phirinus; and much about the same time, he likewise composed that great and famous Work, called the Tetrapla; which was a Bible, wherein by the side of the Hebrew Text, he had transcribed in different Columns, the Translation of the Septuagint; that of Aquila; that of Symmachus, and that of Theodosion, distinguished by Verses; and he added thereunto afterwards two other Versions without any Authours Name, and a Seventh only upon the Psalms, which he found at Jerico in a Barrel: and these Versions, with the Hebrew, written both in Hebrew and Greek Characters, make up that Book which is called the Hexapla. g 1.375 These Works mightily increased his Reputation, and drew from all Parts into Alexandria a great Number of learned Persons to converse with Origen, and to be instruct∣ed by him. Ambrose was one of this Number: He anathematized the Heresie of Valentinus, in which he had been engaged, to embrace the Orthodox Faith. Origen was afterwards obliged seve∣ral times to leave Alexandria: For first he was sent for by an Arabian Prince, who wrote to Demetri∣us, Bishop of Alexandria, and to the Governour thereof, to send him to him to be instructed by him; and a little while after, this City being cruelly harrass'd by the War which the Emperor Antoninus Caracalla made against its Inhabitants for having affronted him by their Jears and Scoffs, Origen retired into Palestine; and being come to settle in the City of Caesarea, the Bishops of that Province desired him to expound publickly the Scripture in that Church and to instruct the People in their Presence, though he was not yet a Priest; to which Request of theirs he complied. Now whether Demetrius envied him this Honour, or whether he was persuaded that they had violated the Rules of the Church, he wrote to these Prelates, telling them, That it was a thing unheard of, and that it had been never practised till then, that Lay-men should Preach in the Presence of Bishops. But Alexander of Jeru∣salem, and Theoctistus of Caesarea, writing back to him, proved by several Instances, That this had been often put in Practice. In the mean time, Demetrius had written to Origen to come home; and having also sent some Deacons to press his Return, he was obliged to betake himself again to his first

Employment. Some time after, he was again diverted from it by Order of the Princess Mam••••••, who caused him to come to Antioch, that she might see, and discourse with him: but staying with her but a little while, he returned to Alexandria, and fell again to work upon the Holy Scripture, with the Assistance of his Friend Ambrose, who furnished him with Copyers. He continued there till the Year 228, when he departed from thence with Letters of Recommendation from his Bishop, to go into Achaia about some Ecclesiastical Affairs. h 1.376 It was in this Voyage, as he passed through Pa∣lestine, that he was ordained Priest by the Bishops of this Province, being 42 years old. This Ordi∣nation of Origen by Foreign Bishops extreamly incensed his Diocesan Demetrius against him, it having been done without his Permission. He wrote every where Letters against him, upbraiding him for the Action which he had committed in his Youth. However, Origen returned to Alexandria, where he continued to write his Commentaries upon the Sacred Scripture. It was then that he published his five Books of Commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, eight Books upon Genesis, Commentaries up∣on the first Five and twenty Psalms, and uopn the Lamentations of Jeremiah; his Books de Principiis, and his Seromata.

All this while the Bishop of Alexandria was not at all appeased, but continued to persecute him: And in a Council which he assembled in the Year 231, it was ordained, That Origen should go out of Alexandria; that he should not be permitted to teach there any longer, nor so much as to live there; but that nevertheless he should not be deprived of his Dignity of Priesthood. Origen being ba∣nished from Alexandria, retired to Caesarea, his ordinary Place of Refuge, where he was very well re∣ceived by Theoctistus, Bishop of that City, and by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, who undertook to defend him, and commissioned him to expound publickly the Scripture, hearing him as if he had been their Master. But Demetrius not being satisfied with the first Judgment given against Origen, accused him in a Council of the Bishops of Egypt, i 1.377 aand having caused him to be Deposed, and even to be Excommunicated, according to S. Hierom, wrote at the same time to all Parts against him, to pro∣cure his being thrust out of the Communion of the Catholick Church. For when once a Priest was excommunicated, and deposed by his Bishop by the Consent of the Bishops of the Province, he could not be any longer received in any Church. There was no need of examining whether it was justly or unjustly that he had been condemned in his Province. So that it is no wonder if all the Bishops of the World, excepting those of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Achaia, who were particularly ac∣quainted with Origen, and with whom he had a most familiar Intimacy, should consent to his Con∣demnation; and if Rome its self, having assembled its Senate against him, says S. Hierom, that is to say, its Clergy, did condemn him after the Example of his own Bishop. We believe, says S. Augustin, upon a Subject almost like this, whatsoever we are informed of by Letters from a Council, and we must not do otherwise. For those who had not any particular Knowledge of Origen, ought to believe him guilty; and those who knew him, that they might not violate that Order of Discipline, ought to consent to his Excommunication, after it was once signified to them by his own Bishop. And so it was that Marcion being excommunicated by his Father, and his Bishop, and being come to Rome, desiring to be received there into Communion, received this Answer from the Clergy of that Church: We cannot re∣ceive you, without the Consent of your Father; for as there is in the Church but one and the same Faith, so there ought to be therein but one and the same Spirit, and one and the same Discipline. Therefore, by a great Number of Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions, it was absolutely prohibited to any Bishop whatever, and even to the Bishop of Rome himself, to receive into Communion those Priests who had been excommunicated by their Bishops upon any Pretence whatever. Nevertheless Origen found, as we have said, some Protectors, especially in Palestine, where he continued to explain the Scripture at Caesarea with great Reputation, both in the Life-time, and after the Death of Demetrius, who lived not long after he had condemned Origen. All sorts of Persons, not only from that Province, but even from remote Countries, came to be his Disciples. The most famous were, Gregory, Sirnamed after∣wards Thaumaturgus, who was Bishop of Neocaesarea, and his Brother Athenodorus. But though after Demetrius's Death, the Persecution which he had raised against Origen abated a little, yet he was al∣ways looked upon as a Person excommunicated by all the Egyptians, and the Sentence which was gi∣ven against him by Demetrius continued under his Successors, l 1.378 Heraclas and Dionysius, though the first had been Origen's Disciple, and the second had a great Esteem for him. In this time he went on with his Commentaries upon S. John, and he began to compose some upon Ezekiel and Isaiah.

After the Death of Alexander, under whose Reign all this hapned, his Successor Maximinus stirred up a Persecution against the Church in the Year 235. Ambrose, Origen's Friend, and Theoctistus, Priests of Caesarea, having been taken and brought before this Emperor, upon the account of the Christian Religion, Origen sent then an Exhortation to Martyrdom. Nevertheless, he concealed himself during this Persecution, and retired for some time to the City of Athens, where he finished his Commentaries upon Ezekiel and went on with the Commentaries upon the Song of Solomon, which he finished when he returned to Caesarea in Palestine, from whence he went afterwards to Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he remained some time with Firmilian, who invited him thither.

Under the Reign of Gordianus, which began in the Year 238, Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, fell into a very gross Errour, affirming, That our Lord, before his Incarnation, was not a Person sub∣sisting. Some Bishops being assembled to convince him of this Error, they caused Origen to come thither also. After that several Bishops had had Conferences and Disputes with this Bishop, Origen being desired to enter the Lists with him, discoursed him at first familiarly, being willing to be throughly informed of his Opinion; and after having perfectly understood his Error, and the Grounds upon which he pretended to maintain it, he convinced him by several Reasons, and set him again in the right Way, forcing him to acknowledge his Error. The Records of all that passed in this Affair were preserved for a long time after, wherein was to be seen the Sentiments of Beryllus, the Opinions of the Bishops who met there, the Questions proposed to him by Origen, and the whole Conference which they had together in his Church. S. Hierom takes notice, That in his Time, Ori∣gen's Dialogue with Beryllus was extant. This Bishop having acknowledged his Error, preserved the Purity of his Faith even to his Death, and had an extraordinary Kindness for Origen, to whom he wrote several Letters. S. Hierom places him among the Number of the Ecclesiastical Writers.

Afterwards Origen was called, under the Reign of Philip, to another Assembly of Bishops, which was held against some Arabians, who maintained, That the Souls of Men died, and were raised again with their Bodies. After having spoke in the Presence of them all, upon the Question which was in agitation, he defended the Truth, and attacked this Error with that Force of Argument, that he caused all those to change their Opinion, who had fallen into the Mistake.

He was then Threescore years old, or thereabouts, and yet this did not hinder him from carry∣ing on his Works with the same, or rather with greater Diligence; for he did not only compose se∣veral Books in his Study, but he made almost every day Discourses to the People, and for the most part without any time allowed to prepare them, which were nevertheless so well esteemed, that the Transcribers took them after him as he delivered them, and published them afterwards. This Employment did not take him off from composing several considerable Books; as his Eight Books against Celsus, Twenty five Volumes upon S. Matthew, Twenty five Volumes of Com∣mentaries upon the Minor Prophets, a Letter to the Emperor Philip, and one to Severa his Wife. m 1.379 S. Hierom says, That he wrote also a Letter to Pope Fabianus, wherein he sets forth his Recanting of the Errors which he had written, and laid the Blame of them upon Ambrose. If this be so, he did it to make this Pope favourable to him, that he might get again into the Communion of the Roman Church. He wrote also at this time against the Hereticks call∣ed Helcesaitae.

Afterwards, in the Persecution of Decius, which was about the same time, Origen suffered with great Constancy for the Faith. He was seized, put into Prison, loaded with Irons; he had for several Days his Feet in the Stocks, where they were cruelly extended, even to the greatest Extremity: They threatned him to burn him alive, and they rack'd him with se∣veral sorts of Tortures, to try his Patience to the utmost; but he endured all with an undaunted Resolution. n 1.380 Being come out of Prison, he held several Conferences, and wrote Letters worthy of a Holy Confessor of Jesus Christ. Lastly, After having laboured so much, and suffered with such great Credit and Glory, he died in the beginning of the Reign of Gallus,

in the Year Two hundred fifty two, from the Birth of Christ, and in the Sixty sixth Year of his Age. op 1.381

Though what we have remaining at present of the Works of Origen, makes up several consi∣derable Volumes, yet they are nothing in comparison to what he has wrote. q 1.382 Eusebius had made an exact Catalogue of his Works, in the Apology which he made for him, under the Name of the Martyr Pamphilus; and S. Hierom did the same in one of his Letters. But both of these Catalogues being lost, we have no knowledge of any, but those that have been cited by the Ancients; which still are much more in number than those which we have now re∣maining.

We may distinguish two kinds of Works written by Origen. The One are upon the Sacred Scri∣ptures, and the Others are separate Treatises upon different Subjects. He had composed three sorts of Books upon the Scripture, not to mention his Hexapla and Tretrapla, which were rather a Collecti∣on than a Work; to wit, Commentaries, Scholia, and Homilies. In his Commentaries, he wholly gave up himself to that Heat and Fire which was natural to him, to penetrate the height and depth of the Scripture, and the most mysterious Interpretation thereof, the better. His Scholia were, on the contrary, only short Notes to explain the difficult Places. These two kinds of Works were more for the Learned, than for the use of the People; whereas the Homilies, which the Latins call Treatises, and which we call Sermons, were Moral Instructions upon the Holy Scripture. We have none of the Scholia remaining, nor have we hardly any of the Homilies in Greek; and those which we have in Latin, are translated by Ruffinus and others with so much Liber∣ty, r 1.383 that it is a difficult matter to discern what is Origen's own, from what has been foi••ted in by the Interpreter. A great part likewise of his Commentaries are entirely lost. The following Table will present you in one View those Works which we know to have been composed by Origen upon the Scripture, what we have left of them in Greek, and what we have only remaing of them in Latin.

S. Epiphanius, and after him Cedrenus and Suidas, say, That Origen writ upon all the Books of the Holy Scripture. We shall here give the several Books in order, of which there remains now any knowledge.

The Books of Origen, of which we have any know∣ledge, and by whom they are cited.	The Books or Fragments of Origen, which we have in Greek, and whence they are taken.	The Latin Books of Ori∣gen, and their Transla∣tors.	Proofs and Notes upon the Table.
Thirteen Tomes of Com∣mentaries, and two Books of Mystical Homilies upon Gene∣sis. S. Hierom apud Ruffinum invect. 2. & Ep. ad Damasum. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 24. But these thirteen Tomes went no far∣ther than Ver. 15. of the 4th Chap. where it is written, Omnis qui occiderit Cain, &c. S. Hierom ibidem ad Dama∣sum, q. 1. Two Books of Mystical Ho∣miles upon Genesis. Idem Ibid. Pamphilus in his Apology produces a small Fragment of his Preface upon Genesis.	Three Fragments of Tomes, some Commentaries upon Ge∣nesis, related by Eusebius in his Books de Praeparatione. The first upon Ver. 12. of the first Chapter of Genesis, ta∣ken from the 7th Book. The second taken out of the third Tome, upon Ver. 14. taken from the 6th Book, and in the 22d Chapter of the Philocalia. The third, which is in the Philocalia, cap. 14. is extract∣ed out of the same Tome up∣on the 16th Verse. Some Fragments taken from the Philocalia, cap. 16, & 17.	Seventeen Latin Homilies upon Genesis, translated by Ruffinus [1]. It is doubted whether they be not extracted from the two Books of Mysti∣cal Homilies, because they seem to be of the number of those which were made ex tempore, and transcribed by the Writers. The last Homi∣ly is imperfect.	[1] In the Prologue to Ur∣satius, which is written by Ruffinus, he says, That he has collected and translated into Latin, the Homilies of Origen upon the whole Pentateuch; so that though this Version in Merlin's Edition bears S. Hie∣rom's Name, yet it was made by Ruffinus, as Erasmus and Genebrard acknowledge. The Author of the Conclusion to the Version of the Commenta∣ries upon the Epistle to the Romans, which is also Ruffi∣nus, says positively, That he had translated Origen's Homi∣lies upon Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus: They are those that follow.
Commentaries upon Exodus in the Philocalia, cap. 26. Item, Some Scholia. And twelve Homilies.	Some Commentaries upon Exodus, and upon Leviticus [2].	Twelve Homilies upon Exo∣dus, translated by Ruffinus. Sixteen upon Leviticus, at∣tributed falsly to S. Cyril, translated also by Ruffinus.	[2] There is in the Philo∣ca••••a, cap. 1. a p••ssage taken from the second Homily upon Leviticus, which is not to be found in those Latin Homilies which we have. He must therefore necessarily have writ∣ten more than sixteen. Besides, in those which we have, Hom. 4, & 6. he cites more of them.
Scholia's upon Leviticus, and sixteen Homilies. Ruffin. invect. 2. & in Prologo Ho∣mil. in Num. Commentaries upon Deute∣ronomy, which he cites himself, Tom. 32. in Joan. and in the 8th Homily upon S. Luke. Cas∣siodorus had seen eight Books of them, de Inst. Divin. c. 7. Sfime Homilies. Ruffin. Pro∣log. ad Ursat.		Eight and twenty Homilies upon Numbers, which are doubtful, because they were translated by Ruffinus with great liberty [3].	[3] The Style is Ruffinus's, who has made a Preface there∣to; in which he affirms, and also in his Prologue to Ursa∣tius, That he has collected in this Work, and dispos'd in or∣der, all that he could find of Origens upon Numbers, whe∣ther they were written in Ho∣milies or Scholia; so that this Work is more Ruffinus's than Origen's; and we must not wonder, if we therein find some Explications which ap∣pear to be of a Latin Author, and later than Origen.
Six and twenty Homilies upon Joshuah.	A Fragment of the 20th Homily upon Joshuah, in his Philocalia, cap. 12.	Six and twenty Homilies upon Joshuah; to which there is a Preface attributed to S. Hierom; but 'tis more like∣ly to be by Ruffinus, as well as the Translation of this Work, both because of the conformity of Style in the Prologue and in the Version, as because he owns them in the conclusion of the Com∣mentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans.
Nine Homilies upon the Books of Judges.		Nine Homilies upon Judges, all translated by Ruffinus for the s••me Reasons.
Two Homilies upon the Kings: One upon the first Chapter of the first Book; And the oth••r Intituled, De Engastrimytho. Cassiodorus had seen another upon the first Book of Kings, one upon the Second, and a very long one upon the second Book of Chronicles. Lib. De∣cretal. Div. cap. 2.	The Homily de Engastri∣mytho was taken from a Ma∣nuscript of the Vatican Libra∣ry, and published by Leo Al∣latius in 1629. with Eustathi∣us in Hexaëmeron, who wrote against this Homily of Origen's. The Subject of this Discourse is, to enquire whe∣ther the Witch of Endor did really raise the Soul of Samu∣el, or whether the Devil only appeared in his shape. Origen maintains the first Opinion, and Eustathius the second, Authors are divided hereupon.	The first Homily upon the Kings, which is in all proba∣bility done by the same Inter∣preter.
He composed several Homi∣lies upon Job; witness Eusta∣thius in Diagnostico de Enga∣strimytho; and S. Hierom Ep. 75. The first of whom tells us▪ That he had said some things very childish concerning the Names of Job's Daughters▪ and the second, that he had said some things concerning the Stars, and against the De∣vil, which the Church does not receive. He was the first that made Commentaries upon all the Psalms, as S. Hierom tells us, Ep. 89. S. Hilary has copied and imitated them in several places. Trithemius says that he had seen them. He also wrote Homilies and Scholia upon the Psalms, as the Author of the Commentaries upon the Psalms, attributed to S. Hierom, assures us, A Commentary upon the Proverbs, cited by Pamphi∣lus.	A Fragment upon the first Psalm, taken from S. Epipha∣nius, Haeres. 6••. Three others taken from the Philocalia, cap. 2, & 3. Another Fragment contain∣ing the Catalogue of the Sa∣cred Books, taken from Euse∣bius's History, lib. 6. cap. 25. Another from S. Epiphani∣us, Ibid. Item, One upon the 4th Psalm, taken from the Philo∣calia, cap. 25. One upon the 40th Psalm, Ibid. And lastly, One upon the 82d Psalm, taken from a Ho∣mily; Eusebius Hist. lib. 6. cap. 38.	Nine Homilies upon the Psalms, translated by Ruffinus.

Two Commentaries upon the Song of Songs: One was made when he was young; The other, which he com∣posed when he was older, di∣vided into Ten Tomes, in which he has out-done him∣self; upon which account, S. Gregory Nyssen says, That he has taken extraordinary pains upon this Book of Scri∣pture, In Proaemio lib. Canti∣corum.	A Fragment taken from his first Commentary upon the Canticles, in the Philocalia, chap. 27. And one taken from his second, chap. 26.	Two passages taken from the Commentary upon the Canticles, in the Apology of Pamphilus, translated by Ruf∣finus, in S. Hierom Tom. 4. Hüetius believes, that the Latin Book upon the Canticles ought not to be divided into Homilies, since it is a continu∣ed Commentary, and that it is the very Commentary of Origen translated by Ruffinus. Sixtus Senensis, and several others, think that it is by a Latin Author. See the Re∣marks here at the side [4] Two Homilies translated by S. Hierom word for word.	[4] Not only the Protestant Criticks, as Perkins, Coke, Ri∣vet, and others, do reject this Work after Erasmus and Am∣erbachius, but likewise Sixtus Senensis, and several Papists. In some Editions it is attribu∣ted to S. Ambrose, in others to Peter Lombard, others, as Merlin, Genebrard, and Hue∣tius, believe it to be that of Origen; and even Blondel in his Apology is of this opinion, as well as Aubertin. The Rea∣sons against it are, That it ap∣pears to be by a Latin Author, 1. Because in his Prologue he cites the Greeks as strangers to him. 'Tis answered, That he opposes the Greeks, not to the Latins, but to the Christians. 2. 'Tis said, That the Author speaks as if he had written in Latin; for he explains the three Greek Names of the three parts of Philosophy; Ge∣nerales Disciplinae, says he, quibus ad scientiam perveni∣tur, tres sunt, qu••s Graeci E∣thicam, Physicam, & Theo∣riam appellaverunt, (nos has dicere possumus Moralem, Na∣turalem, & Inspectivam) non∣nulli sane etiam Logicam, quam nos rationalem possumus dicere. And in another place he says, That the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be translated by diligere, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by dilectio. 'Tis answer'd, That these Explications are by the Interpreter. A third Reason, which is more considerable, is, That S. Hierom in his Prologue upon Origen's two Homilies upon the Canticles, which he translated, saith, That Origen in the ten Tomes explain'd the Translations of the Septuagint, of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the fifth Version; which is not to be found in this Work: But this perhaps was left out by Ruffinus; besides, it may be said that this Commentary here may be accommodated to all these Versions: so the Reasons which are for the Negative are but weak, whereas those which are for the Affirmative are very strong. First, It is certain that Origen did write upon the Canticles. Secondly, This Commentary has the Character and Style of Origen, which gives an allegorical and figurative sense to every thing. Thirdly, There are some Sentences and Thoughts exactly like those which are in the Homilies translated by S. Hierom. Fourthly, It explains the Hebrew words, and draws from thence a mystical sense, after Origen's way. Fifthly, He here cites his other Works. Sixthly, He has peculiar Notions con∣cerning the Soul and the Angels. And lastly, That which is a convincing Proof, is, That the Greek Fragment of Origen upon the Canticles, cited in the Philocalia, is found here, though interpreted with a great deal of liberty. That it is a continued Commentary, and no•• Homilies, is proved by the Style, because there is a Preface written by the Author; and besides, all Origen's Homilies have a like form of Conclusion, whereas this Commentary is continued without this Conclusion. Ruffi∣nus is the Author of this Translation; and it is certain that it was not S. Hierom, who says in the Prologue of the two Homi∣lies, That this Translation would require too much leisure, pains, and expence, and that he durst not undertake it. Genna∣dius says, That all Origen's Works which were not translated by S. Hierom, were done by Ruffinus; and indeed the Style of it is very like Ruffinus's.
Thirty Books of Commen∣taries upon Isaiah. Five and twenty Homilies. And some Scholia. Hier. lib. 1. Apel. adversus Ruffin. cap. 3. & in Proaemio Comment. MSS. Eusebius Book 6. chap. 32. says, That the thirty Tomes went as far as the Visi∣on of the four-footed Beasts. Several Homilies upon Je∣remy: Cassiodorus and Raba∣nus Maurus tell us, That there were 45 of them.		Two passages taken from his Commentary upon Isaiah. One upon the 1 chap. and the other upon the 28th chap. in the A∣pology attributed to Pamphilus in the 4th Tome of S. Hierom. Nine Homilies translated by S. Hierom (as the same S. Hie∣rom in his Catalogue, and the conformity of the Style, makes it appear.) The 9th is imper∣fect, to which there is added the end of the 9th Homily up∣on Jeremiah.
Five Tomes of Commenta∣ries upon the Lamentions of Jeremiah; Eusebius.	Nineteen Homilies upon Je∣remiah, falsly attributed to S. Cyril, and publish'd by Cor∣derius, twelve whereof are translated by S. Hierom. A Fragment of the 39th ta∣ken from the Philocalia, chap. 1. A Fragment extracted from the 20th Tome, taken from the Philocalia, chap. 11.	Fourteen Homilies upon Je∣remiah, translated by S. Hie∣rom, twelve whereof are also in Greek; but the Translation differs very much from the Greek, and the Homilies are disposed without any order.
Five and twenty Books of Commentaries, and some Ho∣milies upon Ezekiel; Eusebius Book 6. chap. 32.		Fourteen Homilies upon Eze∣kiel, translated by S. Jerome, as the Prologue, Style, St. Je∣rome's own Testimony in Ca∣talogo assures us, and Ruffinus Invect. 2.
Some Commentaries upon Daniel; Orig. Tract. 24. in Matth.		S. Jerome inserted into his Commentaries upon Daniel, Origen's Scholia, taken out of his 10th Book of Stromata.
Five and twenty Volumes of Commentaries upon the lesser Prophets. S. Hieron. de Scriptorib. Ecclesiast. lib. 6. cap. 36. The Commentaries upon Hosea and Zachary are a part of them. S. Hierom makes mention of two little Books of Origen upon Hosea, in the Preface to his Commentary upon the Prophets: but he did not explain it entirely, as it appears by S. Hierom, and by the Philocalia.	A Fragment of the Commen∣tary upon Hosea, in the Philo∣calia, chap. 8.

[5] Five and twenty Tomes of Commentaries upon S. Mat∣thew, with Homilies and Scho∣lia. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 36. and S. Hierom in Proaemio Com∣ment. in Matth.	A Fragment of the first Tome upon S. Matthew, in Eusebius lib. 6. Hist. cap. 25. Another taken from the first Tome in the Philocalia, chap. 6. The Commentaries from the 13th Chap. Ver. 36. to the 22d Chap. Ver. 33. are published by Hüetius, who has copied them from a Ma∣nuscript in the Queen of Swe∣den's Library; and from ano∣ther in the King's Library, from the 11th to the 16th ••••me, and comprizing the 17th.	A Fragment of the first Tome upon S. Matthew, in the Apology of Pamphilus. Another of the 7th Tome, ibid. Bullinger cites some passages thereof, in Disput. contra Casaubonum, p. 2. De∣amb. 3. p. 19. taken out of the Commentary upon the 6th Chap. and the 23d. The Translation of the Commentaries upon S. Mat∣thew, from the 13th Chap. Ver. 16. to the 27th, Ver. 66. is improperly divided into 36 Homilies, made by Erasmus from the 13th Chap. Ver. 36. to the 16th Chap. Ver. 20. The remainder is an anci••n Version, of which we do not know the Author [6].	[5] In the Preface attributed to S. Hierom, upon the Homi∣lies on S. Luke, there are 36. Ruffinus in his second Invective reckons 26 of them, We had better keep to the Account of Eusebius and S. Hierom. [6] Some have attributed it to S. Hierom; but he himself says in his Prologue upon S. Luke, that he would not undertake it. In his 65th Epi∣stle, he says, That no person dar'd till his time to interpret the Books de Principiis, and the Tomes of Origen, therefore it is not ancienter than S. Hie∣rom. Neither was it done by Ruffinus, who in his Version of the Apology of Pamphilus, translates some passages of this Commentary, and relates them after a different manner than what is to be found in this Version, which differs very much from the Text; and it is quite ano∣ther Style from that of S. Hierom, and of Ruffinus. 'Tis probably later than Genn••dius, who says that all that we have of Origen in his time was translated by S. Hierom, or Ruffinus. Aquinas relates some passages of them word for word, in his C••tena aurea: so that this Author is between Gennadius and Aquinas, and nearer the first than the last, because he cites a passage of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Tract. 8. which was not quoted by Origen; which shews its Antiquity, besides the Style and the Terms are old. Hüetius, from whose Observations we have taken all this, believes that it was made in Cassiodo∣rus's time, and that it might be ascrib'd to Epiphanius Scholasticus, the Author of the Tripartite History, were not the Style quite different: Therefore he attributes it to one Bellator, a Friend of Cassioderus, who had translated several Greek Books, and particularly some of Origen's Homilies, at the desire of Cassiodorus.
Commentaries upon S. Luke. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Tomes. S. Hierom. Prol. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ in Lucam. Origen T. 13. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Nine and Thirty Homilies upon S. Luke. Id. ibid. & in C••talogo.		Nine and thirty Homilies upon S. Luke, translated by S. Hierom [7].
Two and thirty Tomes of Commentaries upon S. John. Ruffin. Invect. 2.	There are but 9 Tomes up∣on S. John extant, 1. 2. 6. 10. 13. 19. 20. 28. 32. Ferrarius publi∣shed a Version divided into 32 Tomes, taken from a Venetian MS. Hiietius published the Greek from a MS. in the Kings Library. A Fragment of the 4th Tome. Philocal. c. 4. Another of the 5th Tome. Ibid. c. 4.
Some Homilies upon the Acts.	A Fragment of the Com∣ments upon the Acts. Ib. c. 7.		[7] He mentions it in the Catalogue of his Wo••ks, and in his Prologue to Paula & Eustochicum; and it is quoted by Ruffinus in his Invective. Ruffinus upbraids him for ha∣ving omitted and alter'd, in translating Origen's Homilies upon S. Luke, those passages which were against the Divi∣nity of the Son; and that when he quoted this passage, Ecce enim ut facta est vox, &c. he observes that he added, Prin∣cipium substantiae ejus; which is to be found in the 4th of those Homilies that we have still extant. Lastly, according to the report of Ruffinus, S. Hierom translated seventy of Origen's Homilies. Now he had translated 14 upon Jeremiah, 14 upon Ez••kiel, and 9 upon Isaiah, as appears by his Prologue upon Ezekiel; and there remains, to make up the 70, these 39 upon S. Luke; besides that those which we have under his Name, are written according to the style and manner of Origen. It is objected in the first place, That there are therein several Greek words turn'd into Latin: for example, it is observed, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, gratiâ plena; That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, sine ratione, That cadaver comes à casu; That in the Greek there is an Article. Homily 22, and Homily 25. Answ. These Explications are put in by the Interpreter. There are the like in those Books which we have at present in Greek, and which are undoubtedly his, and in the ancient Translators, as in him that interpreted S. Irenaeus, &c. Secondly, It is objected, That the Holy Ghost is there called the Third Person. Ans. Origen often said, That the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost were 3 Hypostases, and the Latins have translated the word Hypostasis by that of Person: for example, Ferrarius translated that passage of the second Tome in Joan. after the same manner. Third Objection: He makes a Dialogue between the Devil and Jesus Christ, and makes them hold long Discourses together. Ans. This is exactly Origen's way. Fourth Objection: He makes use of the Autho∣rity of Isaiah and the Psalms against the Sadducees, in the 39th Homily; whereas Origen said that the Sadducees admitted only the Law, and by consequence he would not have made use of any other Books against them. Answ. Origen never said that the Sadducees did not admit the Prophets, but only that they did not make use of them to prove the Doctrines of Faith.
Commentaries upon the E∣pistle to the Romans, which were to the number of 15 Tomes, according to Ruffinus in the Preface to his Version; or twenty, according to Cassi∣odorus.	A Fragment of the first Tome of the Commentary up∣on the Epistle to the Romans, chap. 24. of the Philocalia. Another taken from the 9th Tome, in the 9th chap. of the Philocalia.	Ruffinus translated 15 or 20 Tomes of Origen's Commen∣taries upon the Epistle to the Romans [8].	[8] Ruffinus ••bridg'd them into ••alf the compass, as he acknowledges in his Preface. Some attribute this Version to S. Hierom; but unjustly: for in the conclusion he strikes at S. Hierom in these words: Some perhaps may ask me why I put my Name, and may enquire why I have not set down, for ex∣ample, The Commentaries of Hierom upon the Epistle to the Romans. And he adds, That he translated the Books of S. Cle∣ment; and that we should not think that it was done by Hie∣rom, he puts the Name of Cle∣ment in the Title, which shews that this Translation was done by Ruffinus. We have also two Latin Passages taken from the Apology of Pamphilus.
Some Commentaries upon the first Epistle to the Corin∣thians; Hom. 17. in Luc. & Hier. Ep. 52. Some Commentaries, Homi∣lies and Scholia upon the Epi∣stle to the Galatians. S. Hie∣rom in Proaemio Commentar. Ep. ad Galat. & Ep. 89. ad August. Three Tomes upon the Epi∣stle to the Ephesians. Lib. 1. Apol. ad Ruff. 4, 5.

A Commentary upon the Epistle to the C••l••ssi••••s. Apo∣log. de Pamp••••lo.		Fragments of Commen••••ries upon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epistles 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Colossi∣ans and to T••tus, in the Apo∣logy of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
One upon the Epistle to the Thessalonians. Hi••r. Ep. 52. One upon the Epistle to Titus. Apolog. Pamph.		S. Hier••••, in the Epistle to Mi••••erius & Alexander, ••e∣l•••••••• a Fragment of the Com∣mentaries of Origen upon the Epistle to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
Some Commentaries and Homilies upon the Epistle to the Hebrews. He promised a Commenta∣ry upon the Apocalypse, Tom. 3 in Matth.	E••s••bius lib 6. cap. 25. re∣lates a Fragment upon the E∣pistle to the Hebrews.	Lastly, There are some Frag∣ments of a Commentrry up∣on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Apology of Pamphilus.
	All these Greek Fragments are exactly collected by Hue∣tius in the two Volumes which he has published, containing all that remains in Greek o•• Origen's Works upon the Scri∣pture; and 'tis to him that we are indebted for almost all the Remarks that are here. He has not inserted the Fragments which are in the C••••enae, be∣cause he believes they are not of any great Authority.

The other Treatises of Origen are not near so many in Number as his Works upon the Holy Scri∣pture: and yet they were very considerable: for not to mention his Commentaries upon the Philoso∣phers, which Eusebius speaks of in the 6th Book, Chap 18. of his History, he wrote s 1.384 2 Books of the Re∣surrection; the Treatise de Principiis, divided into 4 Books; 10 Books of Stromata, t 1.385 witness the same Eusebius, Chap. 24. The Book of Martyrdom, mentioned in the 28 Chapter. The 8 Books against C••••sus in the 36 Chap. The Letter to Africanus, concerning the History of Susanna; to which we may add, the Dispute which he had with Beryllus, which was extant in Eusebius's Time, u 1.386 and some Discourses & Letters which Eusebius collected, and divided into three Books, as he declares in the same 5th Book, Chap. 36. S Hierom mentions almost all his Works; and besides these, two other Dialogues of the Re∣surrection, and a Treatise explaining the Hebrew Names of the New Testament, which he added; to that of Philo, concerning the Explanation of those of the Old. x 1.387 And also in the Apology of Pam∣philus, there is mention made of a Treatise concerning Prayer, composed by Origen. Theodoret often cites our Author against divers Heretick: y 1.388 but we must not therefore think that he composed so many express Treatises against these Hereticks; they are only some Passages of his Works, where he confutes several Errors, whilst he is writing upon other Subjects.

The Chief of all these Books is the Discourse against Celsus, divided into eight Books, which were published in Greek long since, with the Translation of Gelenius, and the Notes of Haeschelius, and of one Christoph. Persona, printed at Rome in the Year 1471, and afterwards very correctly in England in

••658. The Exhortation to Martyrdom has ••een lately published by W••••st••nius, the Greek Professor as Basil, together with the Letter to Africanus, concerning the History of Susanna, which was former∣ly set forth in part by Haeschelius, in the Year 1602. We have likewise the Version of the four Books de Princip••••s, composed by Ru••••inus. But he has taken so much Liberty aa 1.389 that we cannot discern what is Origen's own. There are some Latin Fragments of the Books of the Resurrection, cited in the Apology of Pamphilus, which we have only in Latin. The Letter to S. Gregory Thaumaturgus is entire in Greek in the Philocalia. Ruffinus relates a Fragment of a Letter to those of Alexandria, where he complains that they had corrupted his Books. S. Hierom accuses him for having omitted, that in this same Letter Origen railed at Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, and at those others who had condemned him. Eusebius also produces, as we have already said, some Fragments of two Letters. The Book of Prayer, which Hiietius had promised, has been lately published in Greek and Latin in England. This Work was addressed to Ambrose and Tatianus, and it may be divided into three Parts. In the first, he treats of the Necessity, the Advantage, and the good Effects of Prayer. In the Se∣cond, he discourses of the different kinds of Prayer, and particularly explains the Lord's Prayer. In the Last, he speaks of the Circumstances and Conditions which ought to prec••de, accompany and follow our Prayers. Lastly, We may joyn to Origen's Works the Philocalia, which is a Collection of several Passages of Origen, relating to the Holy Scripture, made by S. Basil, and S. Gregory N••zian∣zen, and published by Tarinus in the Year 1618, and the Book of the Apology of Pamphilus, of which we have the Translation done by Ruffinus, which is amongst S. Hierom's Works in the Fourth Tome.

We ought also to have reckoned here the Dialogue against Marcion, which bears his Name, if it was not more probable that it was composed by another Author bb 1.390, who has introduced Origen in this Dialogue defending the Churches Cause, and therefore has given it Origen's Nam••: as Cicero gave that of Laelius and Cato to his Books of Friendship and Old Age.

But we must reckon amongst the Supposititious Books two different Commentaries upon Job, Printed in Latin under Origen's Name; the first divided into three Books, which concludes about the middle of the third Chapter of Job. We do not certainly know whether it was composed in Latin, or whether it was translated from the Greek cc 1.391: however, 'tis certain that it was not written by O∣rigen dd 1.392, but by some other Author, who lived since the Time of Arius ee 1.393, and one that was an Ari∣an himself.

The other Commentary upon the Book of Job, translated by Perionius from a Manuscript of the King's Library, is also by an Arian ff 1.394, but different from the first, though he commends the Mar∣tyr Lucian as well as Origen, and speaks of the Manichees. The four Homilies upon Job, which were published under Origen's Name in the first Edition by Genebrard, were left out in the second, because they are not Origen's, no more than S. Chrysostom's, to whom they are still attributed. It is observed in a Letter prefixed to Er••smus's Edition, that there were still remaining under Origen's Name, some little Notes upon Job, which they would not insert in his Works, because they appeared to be of a quite different Style and Genius.

There is in the King's Library, a Commentary upon S. Mark, ascribed likewise to Origen, which is certainly none of his gg 1.395.

The ten Homilies upon several Passages of the Gospel, collected by Merlinus, are all written by others hh 1.396, being written after a quite different manner, and almost all of them composed by a La∣tin.

The Book concerning Sighs, or Penance, attributed to Origen, and placed by Gelasius among the Number of the Apocryphal Pieces, is without doubt counterfeit, as well as his Preface. Morellus caused to be printed under Origen's Name, in the year 1601, some Scholia upon the Lord's Prayer, and upon the Hymn of the Blessed Virgin, and of Zachary; but the Bibliotheca Patrum, &c. ii 1.397 informs us. That they were written by Petrus Laodicensis. Besides, there were found in the Vatican Library, some Homilies upon Jeremiah, some whereof were printed by Chifletius in the Year 1623, which also are none of his. The Book concerning Coelibacy of the Clergy, which is amongst S. Cyprian's Works, bears the Name of Origen in a Manuscript of the King's Library kk 1.398, but 'tis the Work of a Latin Author. It is said also, That there are in Libraries some Treatises under this Author's Name ll 1.399, which are very dubious, they not being cited by the Ancients, and being for the most part upon such Subjects, upon which it is not likely that Origen should have written.

I shall not stand to set down in particular the several Editions of Origen's Works, as well in Greek as in Latin, having already taken notice of the greatest part of them: It shall suffice me to say, That all Origen's Works that are in Latin, have been collected by Merlinus, and afterwards by Erasmus, and printed in two Volumes at Paris in the Year 1512, and at Basil in the Years 1526, 1545, and 1571. That Genebrard has since made a larger Collection, printed at Paris in 1574, 1604, and 1619; and at Basil in 1620. That all the Greek Fragments of Origen's Books upon the Scripture, are published with a Translation by the Learned Hiietius, and printed in France in two Volumes, in the Year 1667, but that he has not yet set forth the other Works of Origen, as he promised. That his Books against Celsus, and the Philocalia were printed in England in 1658. That Wetstenius, Greek Professor at Ba∣sil, caused to be printed there, in 1674, the Dialogue against Marcion, the Exhortation to Martyr∣dom, and the Letters of Africanus and Origen, concerning the History of Susanna; and lastly, That the Book concerning Prayer has been lately printed in England. So that to have all Origen's Works, as well those which we have only in Latin, as those in Greek, we must have Genebrard's Edition, Hu∣etius's two Volumes, the Books against Celsus, with the Philocalia, printed in England iu Quarto; the Quarto Volume set forth by Wetstenius, and the little Treatise concerning Prayer, lately printed in England.

It would be very tedious, and to little purpose, to give here an Abridgment of all Origen's Works, and particularly of his Homilies, and his Commentaries upon the Scripture, which are almost all full of Allegories and Morality; besides, having only the Version of the greatest part of the Homi∣lies, we cannot be certain whether that which relates to Doctrine and Discipline, be Origen's own, or Ruff••nus's: I ••••all therefore content my self to give a Summary of his Doctrine upon the principal Points of our Religion, examining at the same time whether he be guilty of those Errors of which he is accused.

If we had had his Books of Principles in Greek, we might easily have been informed of all his Opi∣nions; for these Books contained the Abridgment of his Doctrine: But since we have only Ruffinus's Translation, in which he himself confesses that he altered and omitted several Passages, wherein Origen discourses concerning the Mystery of the Trinity, which he believes were corrupted by the Hereticks, we cannot be assured of Origen's Doctrine from this Version, except it be in those things for which he is condemned: so that we must have recourse to those Works of Origen which we have in Greek.

Origen's Notions concerning the Nature and the Attributes of God are very Orthodox; he be∣lieves that he is a Spiritual, Invisible, Simple, and Eternal Essence. He is wrongfully accused for believing that God had a Body, since * 1.400 he says directly contrary in several places, and proves it by many convincing Arguments. He discourses admirably concerning the Knowledge and the Providence of God. Some have accused him of having set Bounds to his Power, because he says, That he is called Omnipotent only because he governs all things, and not because he can create any thing new. Justinian cites in his Letter to Mennas, a Passage taken from the second Book of Origen's Principles, where he says that the Power of God is finite, and that he made all the Creatures that he can govern. Russinus also taxes him of this Error. He seems indeed to have believed that God created that Matter from all Eternity, whereof he has made the World, and of which he will make successively several other Worlds.

The Ancients are extreamly divided as to the Judgment that is to be given of Origen's Doctrine concerning the Trinity.

S. Hierom, John Bishop of Jerusalem, S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, and after them Theophilus, Justinian, and the fifth Council, have accused him of several Errors about this Mystery: On the contrary, Didymus, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and anonynious Author, of whom Photius speaks in the 117th Volume, S. Chrysostom and Russinus have either cited him against the Arians, as an Author who had Orthodox Notions concerning the Trinity, or defended him against the Accusations of his Enemies; the One by giving a favourable Sense to his Words, and the Others by maintaining that those Passages which were found not to be agreeable to the Faith of the Church were added; and that there were other contrary Expressions, which were entirely conformable to the Doctrine of the Church. It is certain that in Ruffinus's Latin Versions which we have of the Book de Principiis, and the Apology of Pamphilus, and of his other Works, the Doctrine of the Tri∣nity is explained after a very Orthodox manner. But we must confess, that we cannot rely upon Ruffinus's Credit, who acknowledges that he added and altered several Passages relating to the Trinity. It is true, he says he has taken what he has added from other Places of Ori∣gen; but S. Hierom denies it, and we are not obliged to believe Ruffinus upon his own word. So likewise we ought not to give Credit entirely to what St. Hierom says against Origen, since he was as violent against him, as Ruffinus was passionate for him. Therefore, Neither believing his Enemies, nor his zealous Defenders, let us consult those Pieces of his Works which we have in Greek And here still we are in a Labyrinth, from which it will be difficult to extricate our selves. Herein we find some things which appear no less contrary, than the Opinions themselves of the Authors who who have written for and against him. He often speaks very ex∣cellently of the WORD, which gives us reason to believe that he * 1.401 was persuaded of his Godhead: He says, That he was from the be∣ginning in the Father; That he is the Image of the Father; That He was begotten of the Father from all Eternity; That he is a Sub∣sistence, and a Person distinguished from the Father; That he is the Wisdom of God, and that he is God himself; That he never leaves his Father; That those are in an Error, who deny that the God-head of the Father and the Son is the same, though their Substance be different; That he is God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though he be not the Source and Original of the Godhead, as the Father is, whom upon that account he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That he is above all Creatures; That we may address our Vows and our Prayers to Him, as to God the Father; That he is only known by the Father; That he ought to be honoured as the Father, and that he has the same Power. Lastly, S. Athanasius cites two formal Pas∣sages for the Eternity of the WORD, and for his Equality with the Father; and S. Basil also cites one which is very clear for the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.

But, on the other side, in his Books we meet with many Expressions which are very harsh, little conformable to the Orthodox Doctrine, and which seem to favour the Arians. He says, That the Word is an Hypostasis different from * 1.402 the Father; and he takes the Word Hypostasis to signifie Nature and Substance. He says likewise, That the Father and the Son are One in Concord and in Will; and that the last is not properly God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but only called God, because he is the Image and Resem∣blance of the Divinity; That the WORD and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; That we must not compare the Father with the Son; and that the Father is greater than the Son, who is inferior to Him, though he be superior to all Creatures, as the Sun-beam is inferior to the Sun; and lastly, That the WORD is the Minister of the Father. These Ex∣pressions, and some others like them, are hard indeed; but when there are Contradictions in Au∣thors, we ought always, in my Opinion, to take the most favourable Side. Besides, That it is more easie to put a good Construction on these last Expressions, which were very common before the Council of Nice, than to put a bad one upon the First: For, without making use of Ruffinus's way of defending him, who says that these Places are either added or corrupted; and without alledging in his Excuse, that being to dispute against the Sabellians, he was obliged to make use of some Terms which might seem to favour the opposite Error: without making use, I say, of these general Defences I believe we may explain in a very Catholick Sense, those Expressions which I have just now related. When he says, That the Father and the Son were Two Hypostases; he understands by the Word Hypo∣stasis, all that is opposed to nothing; and he had no other Design than to maintain against the Sabelli∣ans, That the WORD was not a Vertue or a Quality from the Father, but a Person subsisting. It is certain, That in Origen's Time the Word Hypostasis and Substance were synonymous Terms; but so too by the Word Substance, was often understood a Person subsisting; and some Catholick Authors, not only before the Council of Nice, but even afterwards have affirmed that the Father was a Substance, the Son a second Substance; understanding, as S. Hilary observes, by Substance, the Persons subsisting. In the second Place, Origen does not say that the Son is a Creature: He does not deny but that he is God, but he only denies that he is God of himself, as the Father is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and this is what he would explain by the Comparison of the Sun and the Sun-beam, which the Fathers, who lived after the Council of Nice, thought to be very proper for the explaining the Mystery of the Trinity. And thus it is, that going upon this Principle, he says, That the Son is inferiour to the Father, and that the Father was greater than the Son; not that he believed them to be of a different Nature, since he owned that they are One and the same Divinity, and One and the same Substance; That the Son was equal to the Father, and that he was in him from all Eternity; but because the Son derives his Divinity from the Father, who is the Source of the Godhead. As to what he says, That the Son is

the Minister of the Father; That the Father made use of him in making the World; and that the Son was created. These are Expressions that are too common amongst the Ancints, to be particular∣ly objected to Origen as a Crime.

S. Hierom accuses Origen, for saying, That the Son, in comparison * 1.403 of the Father, was not Goodness it self, but only the Image and Re∣presentation of Goodness; and Huetius confirms this to have been * 1.404 Origen's Opinion by some of his Greek Passages. The same S Hie∣rom upbraids him also for affirming that the Son in comparison of the Father, was a lesser Light; That he was not the Truth, but the Image of the Truth; That he was Visible, and the Father Invisible; but we may easily discern that these Expressions, as harsh as they may seem, being considered separately, were meant by Origen in a good sense, he having no o∣ther Design than to prove that the Father was the Source and Original of Goodness and Truth; and that the Son received it from him; and that in this sense he was the Image of the Father's Good∣ness, the Brightness of his Godhead: Expressions which in this sense are very Orthodox. As to what he says, that the Father is Invisible, and the Son Visible, we have shewn in other Places what the An∣cients meant by this way of speaking.

Lastly, It is easie to answer what S. Epiphanius and several others object to Origen, That he denied that the Father was Visible to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: for he affirms so expresly in so many places, That the Father is perfectly * 1.405 known of the Son, and even of the Holy Ghost, that he must of ne∣cessity have had some other meaning, when he seems to assert the contrary. Ruffinus answers this Ob∣jection, That he denied that the Father was visible to the Son, as Bodies are visible to Bodies that he might confute the Error of the Valentinians, who believed that God was Corporeal; and he cites a Passage of Origen, where he distinguishes betwixt Seeing and Knowing, and affirms, That we may say that the Son knows the Father, but that we cannot say that he sees him, because Seeing is the Property of a Body. I shall not make any Answer to other more trivial Objections, because it is easie to satis∣fie them, as well by what we have just now said, as by what we have observed upon the other Fathers. a 1.406 There are no very con∣siderable Objections made against Origen's Doctrine concerning the Incarnation; for though he be accused of several Errors, he affirms so positively in all his Works, That the WORD had taken a Body and a Soul like ours in the Womb of a Virgin, by the Operation of the Holy Ghost; That Jesus Christ had true Fesh; That he really suffered; That he is altogether God and Man, in that the Human Nature was united with the Divine Nature in one and the same Per∣son: That it is impossible to accuse him of any Error concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation. Perhaps, as he was of Opinion, That the Souls were in Heaven before they came down into their Bodies, he might think the same thing of the Soul of Jesus Christ. But this was only a particular Error, for which he was not very earnest.

He is accused of believing that the Death of Christ was of Advantage to all reasonable Creatures, as Angels, Devils, and even insensible things; and 'tis certain that he does assert this wild Notion in several places of his Works. He has feigned a Spiritual Death of Jesus Christ in the other World, which has given occasion to tax him for holding that Jesus Christ died several times. He believed that Christ did not come out of the Virgins Womb by Penetration; and he accuses the Virgin Mary of Di∣strust. But these are but slight Errors, and common among the Ancients.

As he believed that the only Point of Faith relating to the Angels, was, That there were such Be∣ings, and that neither Scripture nor Tradition had determined any thing as to their Nature and their Number; so he has taken the Liberty to deliver his own Thoughts hereupon: He imagines that they are Corporeal, though invisible, having nevertheless a Spiritual Soul. He says, That the good Angels have a finer, and the Evil ones a grosser Body. The Principle from whence he has drawn this Con∣clusion, is, That all intelligent and spiritual Creatures having been created in Heaven with a perfect Freedom of Will, they have been afterwards, for a Punishment of their Faults, confined to Bodies more or less gross, according to the Quality of their Crimes, and ranked in such and such Orders or Degrees of Creatures inferior one to another: yet so, nevertheelss, as that after having suffered this Exile, if I may so say, for some Ages, they may by living vertuously, return to the Place from whence they were banished. b 1.407 And go∣ing upon this Principle, he affirms, That men may become Angels, and Angels Men; That the Angels being free, do often commit Faults; That the Devils shall one day be delivered; That the An∣gels are guilty of several Offences in their Administration of things here below, for which they are immediately rebuked, and for which they shall be judged in the Day of Judgment. All these Fancies, and several others, are the Conse∣quences of Plato's Doctrine, to which Origen was wonderfully addicted. We must nevertheless ac∣knowledge, that he does not propose these things as Doctrines of our Religion, but only as his Opini∣ons and Conjectures.

c 1.408 He says in several Places, That the Angels take care of Men; That every Church, every Society; and lastly, every Man has his Guardian-Angel; and even in some places he says, That every one has his good and evil Angel; in other Places, That several Angels have the Care of one particular Person; and in others, That they take care of inanimate Things. Though he denies that we ought to address to the Angels the same Prayers, and the same Adorations as to God, yet he allows that they may be prayed unto, and honoured according as they deserve.

Concerning the Soul, he says in the Preface to his Books of Principles, that it is not determined by the Tradition of the Church, whether it be produced by another Soul, or whether it comes from else-where; whether it be Eternal, or created at a certain time; whether it animates the Body, or whe∣ther it be only confined there. This is what he says in the Language of an Ecclesiastical Author: But following the Principles of Plato's Philosophy, he holds, That Souls are intelligent Creatures, which have been from Eternity, which are sent into Bodies as into a Prison, for a Punishment of their Sins; That they pass from Body to Body; That they become Angels; and lastly, That they are in a continual Motion. He asserts all these things in his second Book of Principles, Chap. 6, and 7. and in several other places of his Works. d 1.409 He says in some Places, That the Soul is Corporeal; but in others, he assures us, that it is Spiritual and Incorporeal.

e 1.410 He holds it as an Article of Faith, That there is a Free Will in all reasonable Creatures; from whence it follows, That though a Man may be excited to Good by some C••lestial Power, and spurr'd on to Evil by the Devil, yet he is never constrained to do Good or Evil. This is what he says agree∣ably to the Doctrine of the Church; but he extends this Liberty, by following Plato's Principles, to all sorts of Conditions; and he pretends, That an intelligent Creature is, and will always be free to do Good and Evil, in whatsoever State and Condition he is; for in this he makes Free Will to consist. f 1.411 He does not seem to have made any Distinction between Adam's State, and that of Mankind after the Fall.

He attributes very much to Free-will, and Nature, and he speaks but very little of Grace, which he believes was infused into Souls according to the Merits which they have, before they are confined in Bodies; and afterwards it is augmented according to the Good and Evil which they do in making use of their Natural Liberty. He ascribes in several Places the Conversion of a Man, and all the Good which he acts, to Free Will; and allows hardly any thing to Grace, so that it was not without Reason that St. Hierom accuses him for having furnished the Pelagians with Principles; though yet in some places he speaks very advantagiously of Grace; and of the Assistance of God. He is taxed for holding, that Men may arrive to such a Degree of Perfection, that they shall be no more subject to Temptation, nor commit any more Sins: And indeed there are some Relicks of this Error in his Books. He has also affirmed, that those who have sinned, after having receiv∣ed the Holy Ghost, could obtain no more Pardon for their Sin. g 1.412 And upon this account he maintains, that St. Peter had not as yet received the Holy Ghost, when he denied Christ, and that being forsaken by God, it was impossible for him not to sin. h 1.413 When he explains that Passage of the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ro∣mans he discourses of Original Sin after a very obscure manner; as if he doubted of it: And we must not wonder after this, that he did not admit of any other Predestina∣tion, than that which has respect to Merits.

He believed that the Stars were animated with reasonable Souls confined to these Bodies. i 1.414 He owns the Resurrection of the Bo∣dy, but by Philosophizing too nicely upon this Matter, he has, if I may so say, Spiritualized it.

He admits of two Resurrections; That of the Righteous, and that of the Wicked. He acknowledges the last Judgment, wherein Men and Angels shall be Judged; but he seems to make a doubt in what Place it should be, if all Men were there to be judged. k 1.415 He says, That Jesus Christ shall ap∣pear there, but that we neither know the Place where he will ap∣pear, nor the Manner how. He rejects the Opinion of the Millena∣ries. He confesses that Good Men shall against be recompenced with Eternal Blessedness, and the Wicked punished with Eternal Fire; but he destroys the Simplicity of this Faith by Reasoning too much on this Subject. He believes that all Men, even the most Holy, shall pass through the Fire: That after Men have passed through the Fire, the Wicked shall be cast into Hell, that is to say, into the Lowest Place, and they shall be there tormented with Eternal Fire. This

Fire (as l 1.416 he Explains it in other Places) is Remorse of Consci∣ence, and Vexation of Spirit. n 1.417 He makes Blessedness to consist in an Union with God. He says that Souls come to it by degrees; that after they are separated from their Bodies, they are for some time upon Earth, in order to be purified, that afterwards they are taken up into the Air, and instructed by Angels, that they pass through several Places, where they remain for some time, and that at last they come to the Highest Heaven, in comparison whereof the Firmament is but a Hell; that the more they retain of Earth in them, the longer they are upon this Journey: That the Souls which are arrived at this Sovereign Degree of Bliss, may fall from it, and that they are sent back again into Coelestial Bodies, or others, and that they afterwards return from whence they were driven; that so Blessedness may have an End, and that Torments shall have a Conclusion likewise. n 1.418 He says in his Preface to the Book de Principiis, that God Created the World, that it had a Beginning and that it must have an End; but that it is not determined by Tradition, what it was before, and what it will be after. He imagines that it was made, if I may so express it, to be a Place of Banishment for all. In∣telligent Creatures. He makes no Difficulty of asserting, that there were more Worlds before this, and that there shall be more after it. He says, That God always had the Matter upon which he wrought, which supposes that it is Eternal, since God Created it from all Eternity.

o 1.419 He says, That the Earthly Paradise was in Heaven, and he has explained of the Souls which were there, that which is said in Genesis concerning Adam and Eve. He understands by the Fig-Leaves, wherewith they covered themselves after the Fall, the Mortal Bodies to which the Souls were Chained.

It may be concluded from all, that we have already said concerning Origen's Doctrine upon the Tenets of our Religion, that although he professed to believe the Doctrine of the Church, p 1.420 yet he sets up some Philosophical Prin∣ciples, the Consequences of which were found contrary to what was taught by the Christian Religion; which obliged him, in order to accomodate these things which were so directly opposite one to the nother, to invent several Opinions that were very far from the Sim∣plicity of the Faith. So that we must distinguish in Origen what he says according to the way of Speaking used by the Church in his Time, and what he says according to the Principles of Plato's Philosophy, and then we need not wonder, if after, having acknowledged the Truths of Christianity, he should lose himself by advancing such Platonick Notions as are destruct••••e to them. And this, in my Opinion, is the reason of his principal Errors, which are all of them found∣ed upon three Principles taken from the Platonick Philosophy; which are: First, That Intelligent Crea∣tures have always been, and shall eternally exist. Secondly, That they have always been free to do Good and Evil. And Lastly, That they have been precipitated into the Lower Places, and confined to Bodies for a Punishment of their Sins. Let any one throughly examine▪ all Origen's Errors, of which we have just now spoken, and he will easily perceive that they all proceed from this, that he was wil∣ling to accommodate the Truths of the Christian Religion to these Platonick Principles.

There are besides some other slighter Errors in Origen, into the greatest part of which he fell by confining himself too much to the Allegorical Sense of the Scripture; for Example, q 1.421 Explaining Christ's Words concerning the Power of Binding and Loosing, which he granted to St. Peter, he seems to reserve this Power to those Bishops and Priests who imitate the Virtues of this Apostle, and in the same Sense he says, that all Spirituall Men are this Rock, upon which Jesus Christ has built his Church. So likewise r 1.422 explaining that Passage of Scripture, where it is said: Not that which goeth into the Mouth defileth a Man, he speaks of the Eucharist after so Obscure and, Allegorical a manner, that it is very difficult to comprehend his Meaning, s 1.423 He likewise explains Alllegorically what is said of the Eucharist in other Places of the Word of God. It is easie however to defend him against the Protestants upon the Subject of the Real Presence, since he acknow∣ledges in the Eighth Book, that the Loaves which are offered in the Church are made a Holy Body by Prayer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We might easily bring other Examples of the O∣versights that he has committed, endeavouring too much to Spiritualize the Words of the Scripture, but I shall pass them over in Silence.

He speaks of the Sacred Scripture after a very excellent manner, as of a Book written by Persons who were inspired by God. His Passages upon this Subject have been collected by St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, in a Book which they have En∣tituled Philocalia. t 1.424 He distinguishes the three Senses of Scripture, but he applies himself particularly to the Allegorical Interpretation, and he affirms that there are some Places which have no literal Meaning. He proves that every Body ought to read the Scripture.

Now for some Points of Discipline which may be observed in his Works. The Christians assem∣bled together in his Time in the Churches, not only on Sundays, and Festivals, but also on other Days. u 1.425 He often speaks against those who neglected to do it, and who did not hear the Word of God with due Respect. There were Priests and Bishops in his Time, who were chosen by the People. And their Duty was to teach the People, they instructed the Catechumens, and prepared them for Baptism for a considerable time. They Baptized the Children; and Baptism was never reiterated; they anointed those who were Bap∣tized with Oyl. They observed Lent; and also fasted Wednesdays and Frydays. They expelled out of the Church, such as committed Publick Crimes after baptism: And x 1.426 he observes in his Book a∣gainst Celsus, that there were some Persons set apart on purpose to take care of the Manners of the Faithful. They allowed of Penance but once, and that rarely too. Excommunication was the greatest Ecclesiastical Penalty. Nevertheless, It was not doubled but that those who were unjustly Excommunicated, might be saved. Simony also was Prohibited.

In his time Sins were confess'd to the Priests, and they examined those who were to teach in Pub∣lick. They believed that one ought to live a very Holy Life, to approach the Blessed Sacrament, and that as it was very advantagious to those who received it Worthily, so it was Damnation to those who received it Unworthily. They did not admit Persons that were twice Married to Holy Orders. They concealed the Mysteries, and principally of the Eucharist from the Infidels and the Catechu∣mens. They Prayed to God on their Knees, and turning towards the East. They celebrated Good-Fryday, Easter, Witsontide, and Sundays, with very great Solemnity.

And these were the Principal Points of Discipline, that can be observed in the Books of Origen: It would be too tedious to take notice of Points of Morality that he discourses of in his Homilies, which are all filled with them. We shall here present you only with some of them.

He says, that we ought not to make use of Marriage, but only for the Sake of having Children: that he who does Good out of servile Fear, shall be less rewarded than him who does it out of Love. y 1.427 There are in his Homilies upon Exodus, a great many curious Allegories upon the Necessity of Renouncing the World, and leading a Christian Life. He says, that Pharaoh represents the World, who slew the Male Children, that is, the righteous, and preserved the Females, that is to say, Vicious and Effeminate Persons; and he makes a pretty Moral upon this Allegory. He says, that Aegypt is the Type of the World, from whence we must depart, not only in Body, but in Mind, by renouncing it entirely. There are a great many other Allegories and Moral Thoughts of the same Nature. He distinguishes two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Sins; Great Sins, and Lesser Sins. He ranks among the number of lesser Sins, such as may prove Mortal; and by great Sins, he understands such, for which we can do Pennance but once. He gives se∣ven Remedies for Sins, Baptism, Martyrdom, Alms-deeds, Forgiving of our Enemies, the Conversion of our Brethren, Charity, and Laborious Pennance, and lastly, that Repentance and Unction of which St. James speaks. z 1.428 He says, that we must not presently reprehend publickly the Sin of our Bro∣ther, but that we ought first to rebuke him in Private, afterwards before one or two Wit∣nesses; and lastly, if he did not reform, then we are to tell it to the Church. a 1.429 He shews that true Fasting is an Abstinence from Sin, and that we ought to Fast in order to Feed the Poor. His Ho∣milies up Numbers, Joshuah, and the Judges are more filled with Allegories than Morality. Those which he composed upon the Psalms have more Morality in them: He there discourses of Humility, of Prayer, of Patience, of Meekness, of the Prosperity of the Wicked, of Repentance, of that Holiness which is required to Communicate worthily, of the Choice of a Guide. His other Homilies are mixed with Morality and Allegories: His large Commentaries have more Learning in them. He therein handels several Questions very learnedly, and makes very judicious Remarks upon them. He gives some Explications upon the Holy Scripture, that are very curious and ingenious: But he goes ••••o, far from the Le••••er, to find out Allegorical Senses, and he amuses himself in Explaining too scru∣pulously all the Words of Scripture, that he might the better give them a Mystical Sense. He is a Great Enemy to. Hereticks, he attacks them as often as he discourses of any Subject that has any relation to their Errors. He does not let any of them escape; sometimes he writes a∣gainst Simon, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Marcion, and Montanus: at other times he attacks the Ebionites, the Helcesaites, the Encratites, the Ophites, and the Sabellians. b 1.430 He acknowledged for Canonical Books of the Old Testoment, only those which were in the Canon of the Hebrews to the Number of Two and Twenty: c 1.431 He ranks the Book of Esther in this Number, and joyns the Book of Ruth with the Book of Judges, and Baruch with that of Jeremiah. As for the Books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom, he commends them as Good Books, profitable for Catechumens, but such as are out of the Canon of the Books of the Sacred

Scripture. He calls them nevertheless in some places Divine Books. He cites the Book of Wisdom under the Name of the Scripture. He cites likewise the Maccabees, and the Book of Ec∣siasticus, which he affirms to be among the Books of Solomon. We have already taken notice of his Opinion concerning the History of Susanna. He receives as Canonical Books of the New Testa∣ment, the Four Gospels, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul; d 1.432 He says however, concerning that to the Hebrews, that the Thoughts of this Epistle are St. Paul's; but that it was Composed by some other Person, and that there is none but God who knows the Author of it, though some attribute it to S. Clemens, others to S. Luke. He says that there is but one Epistle of S. Peter, which was received by all the Churches, but that we may grant the Se∣cond likewise to have been his. He says the same thing of the Two last Epistles of S. John. He cites the Epistles of St. Jude, and St. James in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans. He likewise quotes the Revelations, and attributes them to St. John. Besides these Books, he often cites Apocryphal Writings, as the Gospels according to the Aegyptians, and according to the Hebrews; the Book of Hermas, the Epistle of S. Bar∣nabas, the Book of Enoch, and even some Heretical Books, as the Apocalypse of S. Paul, a Book con∣terning the Twelve Apostles, the Doctrine of S. Peter, the Acts of S. Paul, the History of Isaiah, and and some others.

Origen had very quick Parts, a very strong and Extensive Phancy: but he relied too much on the Vivacity of his Genius; and often lost himself out of too great earnestness to fathom, and subtilize every thing. He had a very happy invention, and a much more happy delivery of what he had in∣vented: But he had not that exactness in his Inventions, nor all that Gracefulness in the Delivery as might be wish'd. He carried on his Work with so great ease, that he is said to have Dictated to Seven or Eight Persons at a time, and he was so ready in Expressing himself, that he made the greatest Part of his Homilies Extempore. Upon which account his Style was not very Correct, nor Coherent; He had a vast Memory, but he often trusted too much to it. He was a Person of most profound Learn∣ing; and he particularly Studied Plato's Philosophy, which he understood to Perfection, and indeed he was too much addicted to it for a Christian. He understood likewise the Maxims of the other Phi∣losophers. He had apply'd himself mightily to the Study of Humane Learning: He was neither Ig∣norant of History, nor Mythology, and he had as great knowledge in all the Profane Sciences, as those who had Studied nothing else all their whole Lives. But he particularly excell'd in the know∣ledge of the Holy Scripture, to the Study of which he entirely addicted himself. He had Learned it all by heart, and that he might not neglect any thing which might be of use for the understanding the Letter thereof, he carefully Examined all the Versions of the Bible, which were in his time, and compared them all together with the Hebrew Text, adding thereto a Literal Commentary upon the most difficult Places. He was not very well skill'd in the Hebrew; yet he knew enough of it to un∣derstand it, and to observe the Differences of the Text, and the Translations; but he did not keep to the Literal Explication of the Bible. He thought it necessary for the setting off of the Holy Scrip∣ture to the best advantage, which appeared but plain and simple to the Heathens, and for the rendring it of greater use to all the World, to give Mystical or Allegorical Interpretations of every thing in it. And herein imitates the way of Philo and Aristobulus, and followed the Genius and Manner of the Platonists. We have already taken notice, that Hippolitus explained the Scripture Allegorically, and that it was in imitation of him that Origen undertook this way of Writing. St. Clement of Alexandria his Master, is also full of Allegories, and 'tis not to be denied but that the Hellenistical Jews, and the Primitive Christians made very frequent use of them: But Origen has carried on an Allegory as far as it can possibly go, and he has furnished Matter to all the Greek and Latin Fathers who have imitated him, and have hardly done any thing else than copy him. This way of explaining the Holy Scripture by continual Allegories, seems to me to be very defective. For though it may be good sometimes to awaken, if I may so say, the Auditor, and to direct him by such kind of Allegories, yet they become useless and tedious, when they are perpetual; and the Mind, which requires great Ap∣plication for the comprehending of them, is tired, and soon looses the Consequence both of Reason∣ing and Thought: Besides, that by minding only the Allegorical Sense, we neglect the Literal, which is oftentimes more excellent, and of greater Advantage than all the Allegories in the World, that di∣vert the Mind without instructing it, and strike the Imagination without affecting the Heart. Last∣ly, If in explaining the Holy Scripture, we should only stick to the Allegory, as Origen has done, it might give occasion to believe, that the Scripture taken barely in the Literal Sense would be but of ve∣ry little Advantage, which is a very great Error. 'Tis therefore a very ill way of defending Origen in this Point, to say with a modern Author, that he seems to have been excusable in this, because he had learned by Experience, that the Letter of the Scripture was but of little use for Instruction. For this is to make him assert a thing which is very false, the Letter of the Scripture being of exceeding use for Instruction and even more profitable than any Allegory, which is not to be us'd, but only now and then to awaken the Auditors.

Origen's Books against Celsus are an excellent Work, and stored with extraordinary Learning. He answers the Objections of Celsus, who of all the Heathens that have written againg the Christian Re∣ligion, had made the most cunning ones, and proposed them the most maliciously, very solidly. He establishes by convincing Proofs, the History of Jesus Christ, his Miracles, his Divinity and Resurrecti∣on. He confutes the Calumnies and Impostures of Celsus, and of the other Heathens against the Chri-Christians;

and Lastly, he proves the Truth and Excellency of the Doctrine and Religion of Jesus Christ. This Book is written very Politely, and with great Care and Exactness. 'Tis not only the best of Origen's Works, but also the most accomplish'd and best Composed Apology for the Christians which we have of all the Antients. The Books of Principles were likewise written with great Care, and they had been of very great use, if he had contented himself to explain the Principles of Religion according to Scripture and Tradition, without mixing therewith his own Philosophical Notions. His Commentaries upon the Scripture are more Polite than his Homilies, they are full of Learning, but they are not very Exact, and we may observe therein a great many Fancies which are useless, obscure, and perplexed. Often after having begun one Explication, he passes to another, without finishing the first. His Homilies are plainer and intelligible, but their style is less Elegant.

The Treatise concerning Prayer is an Excellent Piece of Devotion. It contains a great many Ex∣cellent Principles of Morality, and is full of very profitable Instructions. We may also find there se∣veral Curious Remarks relating to the Discipline of that Time. But it is not absolutely free from the Errors and Defects which we have observed in the other Works of Origen. As this Discourse is very Instructive and not very much known, I have thought it convenient to give a Summary of it.

Origen begins it by a Common Place, to wit, that there are an Infinite Number of Things which we cannot know without being enlightned from Heaven. He applies this Reflection to his Present Subject, saying, that it would be impossible for him, without the Assistance of Heaven, to explain how we ought to Pray, what we ought to say when we Pray, and what are the most Proper Times for Prayer. That he who treats of this Matter, must be enlightned by the Heavenly Father, instructed by the Son, and inspired by the Holy Ghost: That in order to Pray as we ought, 'tis not sufficient to repeat some certain Prayers, but we must have Good Dispositions; and that our Prayer may be acceptable to God, it must be accompanied with a Conscience, Pure, and without Blemish. After∣wards entring upon his Subject he observes that the Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Prayer, is mentioned in Scripture the first time, in that Place where it is said that Jacob coming from Mesopota∣mia, made a Vow to offer unto God the Tenth of all that he should bring from that Country. He adds that the Word is often taken in this Sense, to signifie a Promise or Vow of Performing a Thing, if God grants us what we ask of him in our Prayers. But he observes at the same time that there are other Places where it is taken for Prayer it self; and he sets down some Examples wherein it is taken in both Senses.

After having spoken of the word Prayer, he treats of the necessity of the thing it self: He confutes the Arguments of those who pretended to maintain that it was to no purpose to pray; he observes, that this Errour could not be maintained by any but notoriously-wicked Persons, and by Atheists, who deny God's Providence: but that the Devil endeavouring by all means to spread detestable Doctrines among those that bear the Name of Christ, had put it into the hearts of some persons to reject every thing that is sensible in Religion, to despise the Holy Eucharist and Baptism, and to neglect Prayer as a useless thing. Now these are the Reasons which these Persons bring for their Opinion: First, God knows every thing, say they, therefore what need is there of Praying? Secondly, He does not only know what must happen, but he ordains it; therefore what necessity is there of asking that of him, which shall infallibly come to pass? Thirdly, If we are Predestinated before our Birth, it is to no purpose to pray, since we shall be necessarily Sav'd or Damn'd. Fourthly, God being immutable, we do but deceive our selves in believing that we are able by our Prayers to make him alter his Decrees. Ori∣gen, in answer to these difficulties distinguishes Three sorts of Things which are in motion. The first are those that are moved by a Foreign Power, such as, Inanimate Beings. The second are those that are moved by their own Nature, but without Knowledge, as Animals and Plants. The Third are those that move themselves, and determine themselves, as Intelligent Creatures. He proves, That these are free, and that Prescience and Predestination does not at all destroy this Liberty, because God or∣dains nothing relating to free Actions, but what he has foreseen that intelligent Creatures would do freely: And that so Prescience is not the cause of Things, nor of Actions which are done freely; but it only supposes that these things will be, or will not be; and that the knowledge which God has of them, is followed by the Decree, whereby he is resolved to grant or not to grant his Grace, to hear or not to hear; That he foresees the Good and Evil which Men shall commit; That he knows whe∣ther they will repent or no; and that, in consequence of this knowledge, he Predestinates or Repro∣bates them. He adds, That God has appointed Angels over Men to preserve them, as long as they deserve it. One might here take notice of his particular Opinion concerning the Sun, the Moon, and Stars, which he says are intelligent and free Agents.

After having confuted the Reasons of those who reject Prayer, he shews the advantage of it. He says in the first place, That he who prays, puts himself in a condition of presenting himself before God, and of conversing with him; That in order to this, he ought to drive away all evil Thoughts, to banish all earthly Affections, to raise up his mind towards Heaven, to forget Injuries, to pardon his Enemies, and by no means to repine against God. From hence he concludes, That Prayer cannot be of any advantage, if it be not preceded with great preparation. Secondly, He assures us, That Christ Jesus, the High-Priest of our Offerings, prays with us; That the Angels pray with him, and that the Saints which are departed pray with us, (and this here is one of the most ancient and excellent Monu∣ments to prove the Intercession of Saints.) His words are these: The Souls of the Saints which sleep among the number of the Just, pray with us, as it is said in the Book of Macchabees.—And since the imperfect Knowledge which we have in this World is made perfect in the other Life, 'tis a very great Absur∣dity not to believe the same thing of the other Virtues, and principally Charity towards our Neighbour, which

we ought to believe to be much stronger in the Saints than in mortal•• Men, who are subject to Weaknesses and Imperfections. He adds, That every faithful Person has his Angel that hears him, and preserves him whilst he prays. Lastly, He proves the necessity of continual Prayer, by the Example of Jesus Christ, by that of Just Persons, and by the reckoning up of those Benefits and Graces which have been be∣stowed upon Men from their Prayers: He exhorts the Faithful to pray for spiritual and heavenly Things, rather than for earthly and sensual Goods, such as Beauty, Nobility, Riches: He shews the meanness and the vanity of these things.

He distinguishes four kinds of Prayers, after the Apostle S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, Supplication, which is to ask any Good of which we stand in need. The second called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, according to Origen, a request that is made in any danger, with assurance of ob∣taining what we desire: He observes, that this kind of Prayer is commonly joined with Doxology, that is to say, with Praising of God's Holy Name; The third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a Prayer made by a Person who has great confidence that he shall obtain what he asks, he being much in God's Favour. The last is, Giving of Thanks for the Benefits which we have received. He gives Examples taken from the Holy Scripture, of each of these kinds of Prayer.

This first Part of his Treatise concerning Prayer, is followed with an Explication of the Lord's Prayer.

He maks two Observations upon these first words, Our Father▪ The first is, That it is only in the New Testament, where there is given to God with assurance the Title of Our Father. The second, That if we would say these words as we ought, we must be of the number of the true Children of God, that is to say, Free from Sin, and in a state of Grace.

He says upon these words, which ar•• in Heaven, That we must not understand them in a gross sense, as if God was in Heaven after a corporeal manner.

Upon these words, Hallowed be thy Name, That it is not as if God were not Holy in himself, but only that we desire that men should acknowledge this Holiness in his Conduct. He observes, That this and the following Forms are in the Imperative, but that it is taken for the Optative Mood. And from hence he takes occasion to confute Tatian, who affirmed that these Words of God in Genesis, Let there be light, was not an express Command, but only a simple Wish. By these other Words, Thy kingdom come, the faithful Person prays the Lord, That the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which is in him, may be perfected and compleated by the expectation of the Day of Judgment. By these, Thy will be done, we desire of God, That men may fulfil God's Will upon Earth, as it is accomplished in Heaven; or else, That the Wicked, being represented by the Earth, should perform God's Will, as it is already done by Just Persons. Origen would not have us understand these following words, Give us this day our daily bread, of bodily Bread; but he understands them of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, weo is our Bread and our Nourishment. He observes, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Supersub∣stantialis, which we render by DAILY, is not to be met with in any Author; and that it is peculiar to the Evangelists. In order to explain it, he tells us, That as bodily Bread is changed into our Substance, so this Bread of the Word of God communicates its Nature and Efficacy to our Souls. By Daily Bread, he means Eternity. Upon these Words, And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us, he explains the several Duties of Men. He says, That they owe to themselves the good of their Souls, that they owe very much to their Guardian Angels, but that they are above all things indebted to Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Ghost; that every Condition and every Estaté has its peculiar Duties. There is one Duty, says he, of a Wife, another Duty of a Widow, another of a Dea∣con, another of a Priest, another of a Bishop, whose Charge is much the greater, and he shall render an exact Account to God, who will punish him very severely, if he does not acquit himself well of his Duty. He adds, That as we are indebted to others, so others are indebted to us; and that if we call to mind those Duties wherein we have been wanting towards others, we shall easily pardon those who have been deficient therein towards us, as God forgives us the faults which we have committed against him; That the Priests forgive in the Name of Jesus Christ the Sins of Men; but that, in imitation of the Priests of the Old Law, they must be instructed by the Holy Ghost who those are for whom they ought to offer up Sacrifices, when, and after what manner they must do it. Wherefore he blames those who not being sensible of what is beyond their Power, boast of their being able to pardon Idolatry, and to forgive Adultery and Fornication; which shews, that at that time they refused Communion to Idolaters in some Churches. Upon these words, And lead us not into temptation, Origen says, That it is impossible to pass through this life without temptations; and he proves it, by giving a Catalogue of those temptations to which we are exposed in all conditions and at all times: from whence he con∣cludes, That we ought not to pray not to be tempted, but only not to sink under temptation. He ob∣serves, That God suffers us to fall therein, for a punishment of our sins. He here delivers his Opini∣on of those Souls that were always free, which were sent into this world for a punishment of the faults which they had committed in the other life. He afterwards discourses of the advantage of tempta∣tions, for the trial and proving of our Vertue. Lastly, Upon these words, But deliver us from evil, he says, That God does not deliver us from all the troubles and afflictions of this life, but that he makes us support them with patience.

After having explained the Lord's Prayer, he discourses of the temper and disposition of mind that is requisite for Prayer, of the place where we are to pray, and of the time proper for Prayer. He would have him that is to pray, to recollect and prepare himself, that so he may perform it with the greater attention and fervency; and that after having purified his mind from the thoughts of this World, and banished from his heart all passions and earthly affections, he should reflect upon the excellency of

the life to come; That he should drive from his heart all thoughts of hatred and enmity; That he should lift up his hands and eyes towards Heaven, when nothing hinders him; for he allows sick Per∣sons to pray sitting or lying. He observes that kneeling is necessarily when we ask God pardon for our Sins. Concerning the place of Prayer, he says that every place is proper to pray in, but that Custom will have it that we should chuse the most retired part of the House for our Prayers; and that we should prefer the place which is set apart for the Assemblies of the Faithful, where the Angels are present, where we may be sensible of the Efficacy of Jesus Christ, of that of the Holy Ghost, and of the Suffrages of the Saints departed. He would have us always turn our selves towards the East▪ whether we be in our Chamber, or in an open place. Lastly, He distinguishes four Branches, or Com∣mon-Places of Prayer; The Doxology, which ought to be said, says he, at the beginning of Prayer, praising and glorifying the Father of Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost; It ought to be followed with Thanksgiving; Afterwards we must make a Confession, or an Accusation of our selves for our Sins; to which we ought to add the craving of Heavenly Benedictions for us and our Friends. Lastly, We must conclude our Prayer by praising God through the Son in the Holy Ghost. And this is a great part of what is contained in this Treatise of Origen's, which sufficiently shews it to be of great use. There is nevertheless one passage which may create a great deal of difficulty to those that read it: For he therein affirms, That we ought to address our Prayers only to God the Father, and not to Jesus Christ; because the Son of God being different from the Father, 'tis absurd to direct our Prayers to him. This expression is very harsh, and difficult to excuse: yet we may say, That he would have us address our Prayers to the Father alone, for fear we might seem to acknowledge several Gods; and that when he says, That Jesus Christ is an Essence different from the Father, he takes the term Essence for Pers••n. And indeed he owns in several other places, and principally in the fifth and eighth Book against Celsus▪ That we may and ought to direct our Prayers to Jesus Christ. Be the thing as it will, it cannot be denied but that he has asserted in this place several Propositions favourable to the Opinion of the Arians, on which it is difficult to put a good Construction.

There is nothing more for me to do, to compleat all that relates to Origen, than to give an Account of the Quarrels and Disputes which arose in the Church after his Death, upon the Ac••ount of his Per∣son and his Writings: But this not being a Subject which any ways relates to the Design which I have proposed in this Work, I do not think it necessary to engage my self in this Relation, which otherwise would be but of very little use.

AMBROSE and TRYPHON, Disciples of ORIGEN.

AMBROSE would not have deserved to be reckoned amongst the Ecclesiastical Authors, had he not been Origen's Friend, and contributed very much to the Publishing of his Works, * 1.433 both by furnishing him with Amanuenses, and by continually pressing him to his Work. He had been a Marcionite, and though he was converted, yet he retained some of his Errors, (i•• we believe St. Hierom.) However he was ordained Deacon, and generously confessed the Faith of Jesus Christ, with Theoctistus the Priest in the time of the Emperor Maximus. He was a Person of Quality, and wanted not Parts, which he shewed in some of his Letters to Origen, that were extant in St. Hierom's time, but now are all lost. He died before Origen, and S. Hierom says that he was blamed because, though he died Rich, yet he left nothing to his Friend, who was Poor.

Tryphon who was likewise Origen's Disciple, and who had written some Letters to him, was looked upon in St. Hierom's time as a Man very well versed in the Learning of the Sacred Scripture, which still appears, says this Father, by several Works which he had composed; but more particularly by a Trea∣tise concerning the Red Heifer in the 19th Chapter of Numbers, and upon the Division of the Sacrifices made by Abraham in the 15th Chapter of Genesss: From whence it appears, that Origen's Disciples following their Masters Genius, applied themselves wholly to Allegories.

[It is most probable, that Tryphon's Commentaries, are, in imitation of his Master Origen's, Allego∣••ical; yet it is only probable, at least, for any thing, that M. Du Pin has to say against it: and when things are lost, to determine concerning them positively, is only beating the Air; and though we our selves know how little weigh•• can be laid upon our words beyond conjecture, yet it may lead others into mistakes, who think we can prove what we say, though we do not.]

BERYLLUS.

BERYLLUS Bishop of Bostra in Arabia, after he had been, as we have said, undeceived of his * 1.434 Error by the Conference which he had had with Origen, wrote several small Treatises, and particularly some Letters, wherein he returned Origen Thanks for his Conversion: The Conference which Origen had with him upon the occasion of his Error was Extant in Saint Hierom's time▪ but at present we have nothing of his remaining.

Saint CYPRIAN.

SAaint Cyprian a 1.435 was by Birth an African, and taught Rhetorick with great Reputation b 1.436 be∣fore he was a Christian. c 1.437 He was converted by the Perswasion of a Priest called Cecilius, * 1.438 from whom he took afterwards his Sirname. From the time that he was a Catechumen, he made a resolution within himself to live continently, believing, as his Deacon Pontius tells us, who has written his Life, that it was almost impossible otherwise to come to the Knowledge of the Truth. Presently after he was Baptized, he sold all his Goods to assist the Poor. He was after∣wards ordained Priest, and after the Death of Donatus Bishop of Carthage, he was elected Bishop in his Place, in the Year 248, d 1.439 by the Suffrages of the Clergy, and the People of Carthage, and the Choice was confirmed by a great Number of Bishops, who were then assembled in that City. The Persecution of Decius beginning two Years or thereabouts, after his Ordination; the Heathens being enraged because he encouraged his People to stand firm to the Religion of Jesus Christ, demanded him several times in a full Theatre, to expose him to the Wild Beasts. And this obliged him to retire from Carthage, according to the Command which he believed he had received from God in a Vision. In this Retreat he wrote several Letters to his People, his Clergy, the Confessors, and the Clergy of Rome, of which we may see a Catalogue, with an Account of their Subjects in the Sequel of this Hi∣story. When the Fury of the Persecution abated, St. Cyprian came back to Carthage, and called a Council there the 15th of May, in the Year 251, wherein he, with the Bishops his Colleagues, regu∣lated whatever related to the Penance of those who had fallen in the time of Persecution, either by taking Tickets or Testimonials from the Magistrates, certifying that they had committed Idolatry; or by offering Incense publickly upon the Altars of their Gods, or by eating the Meat which was Sa∣crificed to them. For the first they ordained that they should be reconciled; but for the Latter, they judged it necessary to leave them still under Pennance, and not allow them Reconciliation till they be∣came dangerously sick, provided also that they had begun to do Penance beforethey fell sick. For as for those who staid till they were seized by some desperate Distemper, before they desired to undergo their Penance, it was thought expedient wholly to refuse them Absolution, because then, says St. Cy∣prian, 'Tis not so much their Sorrow for their Sin, as the Fear of Death that obliges them to desire it. Quia eos non tam Delecti Penitentia, quam Mortis Admonitio petere compellit. As for those Ecclesiasticks, who had fallen into Idolatry, it was ordained that they should for ever be excluded from the Clergy, that they should communicate no more with the Faithful but as Laymen, and that even some of them should be obliged to undergo the Severities of Penance. They Excommunicated Felicissimus and those of his Party, who had disturbed the Tranquillity of the Church of Carthage, in St. Cyprian's Ab∣sence. Perhaps it was at this Synod that Privatus, a Heretick of the Colony of Lambesa, presented himself, who had been already Condemned in a Synod of Ninety Bishops, and seeing himself so far rejected, that they would not so much as hear him make his Defence, embraced the Party of Felicissimus. The Council, after they had made these Regulations, wrote a Synodal Letter to Cornelius, lately E∣lected Bishop of Rome, who assembled likewise a Synod of Sixty Bishops and several Priests, who fol∣lowed the Rules of the African Council in the ordering of publick Penance, and Excommunicated Novatian, who joyning himself to Novatus, refused the Grace of Reconciliation to those Persons, who had once fallen into any Sin, and caused himself to be ordained Bishop of Rome, in opposition to Cor∣nelius, by three Bishops, whose Credulity and Easiness he had abused in this Matter. This for a time made a kind of a Schism in Rome, for Novatian drew to his Party, not only some Priests, but also the Confessors who were ready to suffer Martyrdom. The Heads of both Parties being desirous to ob∣tain the Favour of St. Cyprian, and of the other African Bishops, wrote Letters to them, and sent their Deputies into Africk. But Novatian's were received very ill, and the African Bishops, who had for some time suspended their Judgment, and ceased to send Letters of Communion to either of the two Parties, till they were informed of the Matter by two of their own Brethren, whose Names were Caldonius and Fortunatus, whom they had dispatched to Rome on purpose to learn the true State

of the whole Affair: after they were fully instructed by them, and two other African Bishops, who were present at the Ordination of Cornelius, after what manner he had been ordained, decided it in Favour of him, and sent him Letters of Communion, having first confirmed the Judgment he had passed against Novatian in Italy. The Judgment of the Church in Africk, and the Eloquent Letters of St. Cyprian, brought the Confessors of the Roman Church over to Cornelius's Party. Thus the Nova∣tians finding themselves cryed down in Italy, to be revenged upon St. Cyprian, raised Disturbances in Africk, where they caused one Maximus, a Deputy of Novatian, to be chosen Bishop; and on the other side, Felicissimus the Deacon, an Enemy to St. Cyprian, got Privatus of Lambesa, whom we have alrea∣dy mentioned, to ordain, in opposition to him, one whose Name was Fortunatus, and afterwards came into Italy, to get his Ordination ratified there by Cornelius, and by the rest of the Italian Bishops, pre∣tending that this Fortunatus had been ordained by five and twenty Bishops, and that St. Cyprian fa∣voured the Party of the Novatians. Cornelius immediately rejected Felicissimus, and those of his Facti∣on, but at last being either frighted by their Menaces, or else shaken by their Discourses, he enter∣tained some Suspicions to the Prejudice of St. Cyprian, and writ to him after a very disobliging man∣ner; to this the Saint returned a vigorous Answer, exposing his Weakness, and acquainting him with the Malice of his Enemies.

In the mean time, while Felicissimus endeavoured to create a Misunderstanding between St. Cyprian and Cornelius, that Holy Man assembled a Council of Sixty six Bishops at Carthage in April, in the Year 252, wherein some Ecclesiastical Regulations were made concerning a certain Priest, whose Name was Victor, whom his Bishop had received to Grace contrary to the Decision of the Council, and also concerning the Baptism of Infants. About the same time he opposed one Fortunatianus a Bi∣shop, who still held his Bishoprick, though he had Sacrificed to Idols, and offered to reconcile those, who after they had held out for some time, at last yielded to the violence of Torments, and who had undergone Penance for this their Transgression three whole Years.

St. Cyprian after this, having had several Revelations, which inclined him to believe that the Church was to be Persecuted within a short time, was of Opinion, that in order to prepare the Christians for this new Assault, it would be necessary to fortifie them with the Eucharist, and to that Effect, to reconcile them to the Church. So in the Year 253, he assembled a Council of several Bishops, who were all of the same Judgment, and signified their Resolution to Pope Cornelius, that he might use the same Conduct in his own Church. Soon after happened the Persecution of Gallus. Pope Cornelius was sent into Banishment, and suffered Martyrdom the very same Year. Lucius, who succeeded him, was immediately banished, from whence he returned after the Death of Gallus, in the beginning of the Year 254; but he did not long enjoy the Comforts of Peace, but suffered Martyrdom, after he had held the See of Rome for the space of Eight Months only. Stephen was elected in his Place to∣wards the End of that Year, or the beginning of the next. Under this Pope the celebrated Dispute a∣bout the Validity of the Baptism of Hereticks was warmly discussed between the Churches of Africa and Rome. St. Cyprian being consulted in the Year 255 by Januarius, and the other Bishops of Numi∣dia, whether it was necessary to re-baptize those, who after they had been Baptized by Hereticks, desired to be re-united to the Church, returned this Answer, as did several African Bishops assembled in Council, that no Baptism could be valid out of the Church; that it was absolutely necessary to Rebaptize those who had received the Baptism of Hereticks; and in one Word, that this Question had been already decided by the African Bishops their Predecessors. Quintus having also sent the same Demand to St. Cyprian, he made the same Answer, and sent him the Decision of this Synod, which was moreover confirmed in another African Council held in 256, which wrote to Stephen about it, to exhort him to embrace this Discipline But he was so far from submit∣ting to the Reason of the Africans, whether because he imagined they had a Design to condemn the Roman Church, or because he thought this Question was of too great Consequence, that he was en∣raged against St. Cyprian and his Colleagues, and used their Deputies ill: Nay, he prohibited all Christians belonging to his Church, to receive or lodge them, depriving them not only of Ecclesiasti∣cal Communion, but also refusing them the common Civilities of Hospitality. The Letter he writ back was full of Injuries and Invectives, and his Decision was comprised in these Terms:

If any one comes to you, of whatsever Heresie he is, let there not be made the least Alteration in what has been regulated by Tradition, but only impose Hands upon him, and so receive him.

This Letter being brought into Africk, St. Cyprian moved at the Proceedings of Stephen, sent his Letter, with a Refutation of it, not only to Pompey of Africk, but als to Fermilian, and the other Bishops of Cappa∣docia, who were all of the same Opinion with St. Cyprian, touching the Baptism of Hereticks. Fir∣milian having received it, writ a long Letter, wherein he amply refutes the Opinion and Letter of Stephen, and establishes the Discipline which St. Cyprian defended; saying, It had been observed in his Country by an immemorial Custom, and confirmed in two numerous Synods held at Iconium and Synnada. As soon as St. Cyprian had received this Letter, he assembled a Synod at Carthage, in which the Letter he had writ to Jubaianus upon this Question was openly read, and all the Bishops gave their Suffrages in favour of St. Cyprian's Opinion: Thus I have delivered in a few Words, the History of this famous Quarrel between two great Bishops, both of whom the Church still reveren∣ces as Saints.

However, If I may be allowed to make some Reflections upon their Opinions and Conduct, I shall not scruple to observe after St. Austin, that St. Cyprian shewed a great deal more Moderation in this Dispute, and that we can by no means excuse that Heat and Passion which so far transported Stephen: For though the first maintained his Opinion vigorously, yet he did it with abundance of Candor, and

always declared he would leave other Bishops the Liberty to do as they judged convenient, and o∣penly professed he would separate himself from the Communion of no body upon the score of this Controversie, Neminem separantes, said he often, aut a Communione submoventes. Whereas on the other hand, Pope Stephen not only asserted his Opinion with a world of Heat and Rigour, but also treated those Bishops unworthily, who followed a Practice different from his own, calling them false Christi∣ans, false Apostles, and Seducers, and refusing their Deputies not only the Communion of the Church, but even Lodging and Hospitality. As for what respects the Merits of the Cause, though 'tis com∣monly believed that the Pope had the Truth on his Side, yet there is sufficient reason to doubt whe∣ther he did not in the heat of his Opposition to St. Cyprian, carry things too far on the other side, and whether the Opinion of St, Austin, which the Church has since embraced, That we ought to re∣ceive those Persons without Baptism, who have been baptized by Hereticks in the Name of the Trini∣ty, and to re-baptize those who have not been baptized according to that Form: Whether this Opi∣nion, I say, does not steer the middle Course between Stephen's, f 1.440 who seems to have maintained that all those who had been baptized by Hereticks should be received without Re-baptization, which way soever they were baptized, â quacumque heresi, and St. Cyprian's, who asserted that all such ought to be re-baptized. Be it as it will, 'tis certain g 1.441 that St. Cyprian never altered his Opinion; that the Greek Churches were for a long time after him h 1.442 divided upon this Question; that the Council of Arles i 1.443 first decided it in the West; that it is not unprobable that this was the Council which St. Au∣stin k 1.444 calls the full Council, which first decided this Controversie; that St. Austin followed its Decision, and proves it at large in his Books against the Donatists; that the Western Church has embraced this Opinion, and that though l 1.445 the Eastern Churches have not agreed with her absolutely in this Point, yet they always made a distinction between Hereticks, and differently received them, It would be no difficult matter to justifie all this; but as this is no proper place to discuss this Question, so it would carry us too far from our Subject. The Reader need only consult our Annotations, to be better sa∣tisfied.

To compleat what remains of St. Cyprian's Life, it would be necessary here to transcribe the anci∣ent Acts of his Passion, and what his Deacon Pontius has related concerning it; but the Description of his Martyrdom does not concern the Subject or Design of this Work; and therefore I shall only observe, that towards the beginning of Valerian's Persecution, in the Year 257, on the 30th of Au∣gust, he was banished to Curubis, a City about ten or twelve Leagues distant from Carthage, by the Command of Aspasius Paternus, the Proconsul; that after he had tarried there eleven Months, he was

re-called by the Proconsul Galerius Maximus, who confined him to his own Gardens near Carthage; that being informed that the Proconsul had sent some Soldiers to seize and carry him to Utica, he retired inlo a private Place, that he might not suffer Martyrdom out of his own Church, or after any other manner than in the Presence of his own People; and that at last being come back again to his Gardens, after the Proconsul's return to Carthage, he was apprehended, and carried before him; where after he had generously made Profession of the Christian Faith, he had his Head cut off in a Place called Sexti, near the City of Carthage, on the 14th of September, in the Year 258, under the Consulship of Tuscus and Bassus.

The first m 1.446 Letter which St. Cyprian writ to Donatus, contains a Relation of a Conference he had with that Friend a little after his Baptism: wherein after he has spoke of the marvellous Effects of that Sacrament, he eloquently lays open the Perils we run in this World, the Crimes and Injustices that are there committed, and afterwards shewing the Excellence and Happiness of those Persons who consecrate themselves to the Service of God; he exhorts his Friend to live a retired Life, to renounce the World, and to apply himself diligently to Reading and Praying. This Letter, which we are to consider as the First-fruits of St. Cyprian's Works, is written in a very gay florid Style, by no means suitable to the Matter in hand, as St. Austin observes in his Book of the Christian Doctrine; adding, That this Martyr did not follow the same manner of Writing in his other Letters, but that he took up a more masculine and graver way of Writing, and which was more becoming a Christian. These Letters are divided according to the Order of Time n 1.447 into five Classes: The first comprehends those which he wrote in his first Exile. The second those which he wrote under the Pontificate of the two Popes, Cornelius and Lucius. The third, those which he wrote under the Pontificate of Stephen. The fourth those which he wrote during his last Exile, towards his latter End. The fifth, those of which we cannot set down the precise time when they were written, which are but few. But besides this general Order, which it is easie to observe, we are to take notice what Letters follow each other immediately, and this indeed has been attempted by Pamelius, but with very little Success. The Order he has followed, has been reformed by a Learned Person, who has translated St. Cyprian's Letters into our Language, in the Preface which he sets before his Translation. And lastly, He that published a new Edition of St. Cyprian in England, has disposed them in a new Order, according to the Series of Time. We shall follow either of them as we see convenient.

The first of those Letters that were written in the first Exile of St. Cyprian, in all probability is that which is the fourth in Pamelius's Edition, addressed to his Clergy, that is to say, to his Priests and Deacons, wherein he exhorts them to acquit themselves in his Absence of their own Functions and his, so that nothing may be defective in relation to Order and Discipline: He recommends to their Care those Christians who were imprisoned for the Religion of Jesus Christ, to assist them in their Ne∣cessities, and to advise the Christians not to go in Multitudes to the Prisons, for fear of provoking the Pagans; that the Priests, who went to offer the Sacrifice of the Altar in Prison, should go thither each in their Turns, along with a Deacon; and lastly, that the Christians should accommodate themselves to the Times, and take care, as much as in them lay, to soften the Rigour of the Persecution.

[What Du Pin renders to offer the Sacrifice of the Altar in St. Cyprian, is only to offer. It is well e∣nough known that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was called a Sacrifice, the Lord's Table an Altar, and the Administration Offering, in St. Cyprian's Time; and it has been as often proved by all that have given an Account of the Belief of the Fathers in this Matter, That their Opinion was wide∣ly distant from that of the Church of Rome in this Point.]

This first Letter was soon followed by another, mentioned by him in his sixth Epistle, wherein he commends the Confessors for their Courage, and exhorts them to do nothing unworthy of such glori∣ous beginnings. Monsieur Lombert is of Opinion that it is lost, whereas the Editor of the English pre∣tends that it is the eighty first Letter which Pamelius supposes to have been written during his last Exile; but it is more probable that this Letter was written in his first, because he there excuses his Absence, which he would never have done in his last, where he was o 1.448 detained against his Will.

It happened at this time, that a Subdeacon of Carthage, named Clementius, who had gone to Rome towards the beginning of the Persecution, came back to Carthage, bringing two Letters with him from the Clergy of Rome, during the Vacancy of that See by the Death of Fabian: One of them was

directed to St. Cyprian, and gave him Intelligence of the Martyrdom of Fabian Bishop of Rome; the other was addressed to the Clergy of Carthage, exhorting them to take care of the Flock of Jesus Christ in the Absence of their Pastor, and encouraging the Faithful to continue stedfast in the Faith of Jesus Christ, and to raise up those who had the Misfortune to fall; to look after the Prisoners, the Needy, the Widows, and Catechumens; to reconcile the relapsed Penitents at their Death to the Church, and to bury the Budies of the Martyrs. It reproached the Pastors who abandoned their Flock in the time of Persecution; which Passage seems indirectly to condemn St. Cyprian's Retreat. This Letter is the second in the Order of Pamelius.

St. Cyprian answered this Letter of the Roman Clergy, by congratulating them for the glorious Martyrdom of St. Fabian; and having received a Copy of the Letter which the Clergy of Rome had writ to his, though it was both without Inscription and Subscription, yet he sent to Rome to know whe∣ther this Letter was really writ by the Clergy of that City, giving them to understand that he was concerned at their seeming to disapprove his Retreat: This is the third Letter. Some time after this, the Proconsul coming to Carthage, persecuted the Christians after a cruel manner, causing some of the Prisoners to be put to Death, and among the rest, Mappalicus, who suffered Martyrdom on the 17th day of April. St. Cyprian being informed of this, made use of their Example to encourage the other Confessors to imitate their Constancy and Generosity: and this he did in the 8th Letter. At the same time also he writ the 36th, addressed to his own Clergy, to whose Care he recommends the Confessors that were in Prison, requiring them to inter the Bodies of those who died there, to reve∣rence them as Martyrs, and to send him word of the Day of their Death, that he might offer Sacrifi∣ces in remembrance of them. Some of the Christians being then returned home from their Exile, without receiving Orders to do it, St. Cyprian writ a Letter to them, which is the 8th according to Pamelius's Account, wherein he takes occasion to blame their Conduct.

[Mr. Dodwell, in his 5th Dissertation upon St. Cyprian, tells us what kind of Sacrifices these are: They could not be offered as Propitiations, because the Church believed the Martyrs were already Blessed. They were only Anniversary Celebrations of the Memory of the Martyrdom of those who suffered so gloriously for the Faith. Thus all the Saints were also remembred in the Diptychs of the Church: Thus the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and the Blessed Virgin her self, though no Man e∣ver thought they could stand in need of the Prayers of the Faithful. But the Christians were careful, even in the most Primitive Times, to pay all possible Honours to the Memories of those who made a glorious Confession of the Faith. The Acts of St. Polycarp's Martyrdom, which are the oldest we have, shew how solicitous the Christians of Smyrna were to have his Ashes, not to worship them, as they themselves declare, but by paying the last Respect to them that was possible, to shew how wil∣ling they should have been to suffer in the same Cause, if they had had an equal Call. Nay, all Chri∣stians that dy'd in the Communion of the Church, had in those early Ages some Honours paid to them after their Death. Therefore St. Cyprian commanded that no Honour should be paid to Geminius Victor, because he had left Geminius Faustinus, a Priest, his Executor by his Will: And so Du Pin's Words, when he speaks of this Business afterwards, are to be understood; for the same Phrases are used, when he speaks of the Commemoration of Martyrs Aniversaries, and of this of Geminius Victor there forbidden.]

The Persecution that still continued, as it augmented the Number of Martyrs, so it augmented the Number of the Lapsed, that is to say, of those Christians who were so weak as to deny the Faith of Jesus Christ, and offer Incense to Idols, or else such as, to avoid Persecution, got Certificates or Attestati∣ons under the Hands of some Judge, to certifie that they had sacrificed. Now those who had once fallen away, being thrown out of the Church, and excluded from Communion, addressed themselves to the Martyrs, whose Credit and Authority in the Church at that time was extraordinary, who gave them Tickets, wherein they desired that they might be admitted to Reconciliation. They writ to St. Cyprian on the same account, praying him to take this their Desire into consideration, and to re∣ceive these Persons whom they recommended, whenever the Church should be in Peace. But some of them happening to abuse these Tickets of the Martyrs, demanded to be reconciled immediately, and addressing themselves to Felicissimus, and some other Priests, who were Enemies to St. Cyprian, re∣ceived Absolution from their Hands. St. Cyprian being informed of these irregular Proceedings, af∣ter he had continued some time in silence, writ a Letter full of Zeal and Earnestness to his Priests and Deacons (this is the ninth) wherein he severely reproves the Priests, who forgetting their Rank, and the Duty they owed their Bishop, had rashly absolved those who had fallen into Idolaty. He re∣proaches them with deceiving the Faithful, inasmuch as they reconciled them before they had done Penance for their Transgression: He remonstrates to them, that if in Sins of less Scandal and Con∣sequence, it is necessary to undergo publick Penance for some considerable time, before the Party of∣fending is re-admitted into the Church, by Imposition of Hands from the Bishop and Clergy, it is a strange perverting of Discipline, to admit these to the Communion, who, though they have shame∣fully denied the Faith of Jesus Christ, and sacrificed to Idols, yet have undergone no Penance for their Crime, nor received the Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and Priests; that as for the Martyrs, they were excusable, because they did not know the Law; but that those who gave them this false Recon∣ciliation were highly to be blamed: That it was a scandalous thing for Ecclesiasticks to abuse the ea∣sie Temper of the Martyrs, whom they rather ought to have disswaded, in case they requested any thing which was contrary to the Discipline of the Church, but that indeed the Martyrs had demand∣ed nothing like it, since they only writ to him to grant the Favour of Reconciliation to those, to whom they had given Tickets, when the Persecution should cease. At last he threatens some of his

Clergy who had shown themselves rash, indiscreet, and presumptuous upon this Occasion, if they continued in their Obstinacy, to forbid them to Offer, till such time as they gave an account of their Behaviour before himself, and the Confessors, and the Congregation of the Faithful. He writ likewise at the same time to the Confessors, to advise them not to be so free of their Tickets, or give them to all Petitioners, but to inform themselves better of the Character of those Persons, to whom they de∣signed this Indulgence; and then disswades the People from soliciting their Admission into the Church with so much Precipitation, by making them sensible that a rash Absolution was so far from appeasing God's Anger, that it would rather draw his Vengeance down upon them. These Letters are the Tenth and Eleventh.

His Clergy returning him no Answer, obliged him to write a second Letter to them, wherein, after he has complained of their Silence, he gives the Priests and Deacons leave to reconcile those, who having fallen into Idolatry, had received Tickets from the Martyrs when they were dying; and Or∣ders them to Baptize the Catechumens that were in danger. This Letter is the Twelfth in Pamelius's Order, and was written towards the beginning of the Summer 250. His Clergy sending him word, that they did not fail to advise those that had fallen, not to be over hasty, but to undergo Penance; and yet, notwithstanding all the Remonstrances they made, there was some amongst them who daily pressed them; he answered as he did before in his former Letter, that they ought to reconcile those who had received Tickets from the Martyrs, when they were dangerously Sick; but that others, though they had received Tickets, ought to wait till the Bishops could assemble to fix this Business, by common Consent. This Letter is the Thirteenth.

About this time having received Information, That the Letter, a Copy whereof he had by him, without any Subscription,, came from the Clergy of Rome, he writ to them to justifie his Retreat, and give them an Account of the Pastoral Care he had of his Flock, all the while he was absent. This he does in his Fourteenth Letter, wherein he at large acquaints the Clergy of Rome with all that had passed upon the Occasion of the Lapsed; and tells them of the Resolution he had taken conformable to theirs, not to give Absolution to those that had fallen, except they were in danger of Death, till such time as several Bishops could meet to deliberate upon the Affair, by communicating the same to other Churches.

At the same time Celerinus, a Confessor at Rome, writ a Letter to Lucian, a Confessor at Carthage, wherein he desires him to pray to God for his Sister, who having fallen away in the Persecution, was enjoyn'd Penance: This is the Twentieth. Lucian sends him word again, that he had reconciled all those who had fallen, pursuant to the Order he had received from the Martyr Paul, but upon condi∣tion that they would apply themselves to their Bishop, and do publick Penance for their Fault: This is the Twenty first Letter; and indeed this Lucian had given Tickets in the Name of Paul and Map∣palicus, to all the Lapsed, who presented themselves before him, after he was informed of the Penance they had done after their Fall, and had writ to St. Cyprian, desiring him to acquaint the Bishops with it: This Letter is the Fifteenth. St. Cyprian having received it, sent word immediately to his Cler∣gy, that since the Demand of the Confessors concerned all the Bishops, he durst not prevent them, or take upon himself the Decision of a Matter, wherein all his Brethren had a Share; that therefore he would not reconcile the Penitents till Peace was restored to the Church, and he had the Advice of the rest of his Brethren: This Letter is the Seventeenth. At the same time he sent a Copy of a Letter of a certain Bishop named Caldonius, who was of the same Opinion with himself, as to the Reconcili∣ation of those that had fallen, together with his own Answer to it. These two Letters are the Eighteenth and Nineteenth. At this Juncture arrived Letters from Rome, one from the Clergy, the other from Moses, Maximus, Nicostratus, and the other Confessors,

The first is addressed to the Clergy, the second to Sturninus, Aurelius, and some other Persons. The Scope and Design of both, is to exhort those that had fallen into Idolatry, not to use over much hast in getting themselves reconciled, but to wait a sufficient time to undergo a true Penance. These Letters that were full of an Evangelical Spirit, rejoyced St. Cyprian exceedingly, and secured him from the Complaints that were made against him. He thought himself therefore obliged to thank the Clergy and Confessors of Rome in two Letters, which he wrote to them. In that directed to the Cler∣gy, the 22d in order, he gives them an Account of all that had happen'd in Lucian's Affair, he com∣plains of the Rashness of that Man, and tells them very properly to this Subject, That the Martyrs don't make the Gospel, but the Gospel the Martyrs.

In the other, which he sent to the Confessors (the 24) he commends their Zeal exceedingly, and tells them, That to be true Martyrs, we ought always to observe an inviolable Sanctity in our Words, and not to destroy the Precepts of JESUS CHRIST, when we pretend to die for him. He or∣dained Saturus a Reader, and Optatus a Sub-deacon to carry these Letters, because it was the Custom of Bishops in those days to send their Letters by none but Clergy-men. He acquainted his Clergy with this Ordination in his 25th Letter, and sent them a Copy of the Letters he writ to Rome, and ex∣cused himself for being obliged to do this Business in the Absence of his Clergy. The Clergy of Rome being fully informed of St. Cyprian's Conduct, sent him a Letter of Novatian's composing, full of Esteem and Respect, which was brought him by Optatus and Saturus. They acknowledged, that though St. Cyprian being assured by the Testimony of his own Conscience, was therefore under no * 1.449

great Necessity to justifie himself; yet he deserved, however, abundance of Commendation, for de∣siring that his Actions might be approved by his Brethren; that if he had communicated his Resoluti∣ons to them, it was not because they were his Judges, but only that they might partake the Glory of it with him, by supporting and authorizing them, as they do in the 30th Letter, wherein they de∣clare, that they were of St. Cyprian's Opinion, That it was necessary to tarry till Peace were restored to the Church, that so the Advice of the Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Confessors, who continued firm to the Church might be consulted, before they regulated a Matter of that great Importance: That as for themselves and their Neighbours, they would determine nothing till they had a Bishop: That in the mean time they defer'd to give those Persons Absolution who were able to tarry; but as for those who were in danger of Death, and had given sufficient Marks of a sincere Repentance, and unfeigned Sorrow, they looked upon themselves obliged to relieve them in that Necessity, leaving to God the Judgment of those Persons. This Letter is writ with a World of Elegance and Politeness, and abounds with admirable thoughts upon the retarding of Absolution, and also upon that Penance that is necessary to satisfie God.

Let those People, say they, who, by reason of their Crimes, have deserved to be ejected out of the Church, knock at the Gates, but not break them open; Let them come to the Church-Porch, but let them go no farther: Let them demand Peace and Absolution, but let it be with Modesty, Humility, Patience, and Submission: Let their Tears and their Sighs inter∣cede for them, and testifie the real Sorrow they have for their Sins.

The Confessors of Rome likewise returned an Answer to St. Cyprian at the same time. Their Let∣ter, which is the 25th, though not so polite as the former, is equally Learned. They thank St. Cypri∣an for the Letter he sent them, and assure him they received no small Satisfaction and Comfort from it; they looked upon the Condition of those Persons who had suffered Martyrdom to be extreamly happy, since they went directly to Heaven, and thought themselves to be unfortunate, because they were de∣prived of that Blessing. They commend St. Cyprian for his great Vigilance over his Flock, though he was constrained by Necessity to be absent from it. In short, they were of Opinion, that Penitents ought not to be admitted to Reconciliation, before the Church was in a State of Tranquility, shewing how necessary Repentance is to blot out our Transgressions, and how dangerous it is to close up a Wound before it be throughly healed.

These Letters being mighty advantagious to St. Cyprian's Affairs, he dispatched a Copy of them to his Clergy, with Orders to shew them to the Faithful of Carthage, and to the Bishops that were Stran∣gers, as we find in the 31st Letter: But notwithstanding all this Advice, the Lapsi, in a full Body, writ a Letter to St. Cyprian in the Church's Name, wherein they demanded of him to grant them re∣conciliation, as being a thing they might justly claim, pretending that Paul the Martyr had given it to all of them before he died. St. Cyprian sent them word, in the 26th Letter, that the Church con∣sisting only of the Bishop and Clergy, and all the Laicks who continued firm and stedfast, he won∣dred how they durst be so bold, as to write to him in the Name of the Church, and demand Re∣conciliation of him as a thing that was their Due, instead of writing to him after a submissive man∣ner, as some had done before, who, though they had received Tickets from the Martyrs, yet humbly signified to him, that they acknowledged their Fault, that they were heartily sorry for it, and were by no means urgent to receive the Peace of the Church: That he desired them therefore, for the time to come, to let him know precisely what they requested, and to send him their Names, that he might know what to do. He wrote also the 27th Letter to the Clergy, to inform them, that if any of his Priests and Deacons, or else any Stranger should be so presumptuous, as to communicate with the Lapsi, before that Affair were solemnly decided, he declared him to be cut off from Communion. He commends them for separating themselves from Caius a Presbyter of Didda, and his Deacon, who communicated with Apostates, though they had been twice reprimanded by the Bishops; and declares, That he will not judge the Cause of Philumenus and Fortunatus the Deacons, and of Favorinus the A∣colyth, who had withdrawn themselves in the Heat of Persecution, but that they must tarry till his return before he examined their Cause, not only with his Colleagues, but also with the People; that in the mean time he would have them deprived of the Distribution that was given to the Clergy, though in such a manner, as should not do any Prejudice to the Merits of their Cause. He after∣wards, in his 28th Letter, acquaints the Clergy of Rome with all that he had regulated and done a∣bout those that had fallen; and they, for their part, return him a very obliging Letter, wherein they commend his Stedfastness, and condemn the Precipitation of those that were so eager to be reconciled to the Church; but at the same time they excused the Martyrs, who sent them to their Bishop. To∣wards the end of the Letter, they thank him for the Information he had given them concerning Pri∣vatus of Lambesa, and assure him that they think themselves obliged to shew, that they are not indiffe∣rent in those things which relate to other Churches, because

Pastors ought to watch in common for the Body of the whole Church, the several Parts of which are extended in many Provinces.

This Letter is the 29th. Towards October, Celerinus of Africa, after he had generously confessed the Chri∣stian Faith at Rome, came back to Carthage; and going to find out St, Cyprian in his Retirement, com∣forted him exceedingly, by letting him know what an Affection Moses, and the other Confessors of Rome bore unto him. This obliged him to write another Letter to them, to acquaint them how sen∣sibly he received their Good-will, and to encourage them to persevere in the Resolution they had ta∣ken upon them to dye for JESUS CHRIST. This is the 17th Letter in the Order of Pamelius. It contains an admirable Commendation of Martyrdom; he observes in it, that it was almost a full Year since they were in Prison; but then endeavours to satisfie them, that their Recompence would be proportionable to the length of their Sufferings, and that immediately after their Martyrdom, they

would receive the Happiness of enjoying GOD,. These Confessors, animated by this eloquent Let∣ter, suffered Martyrdom soon after the Receipt of it.

In December, St. Cyprian ordained the Readers, Aurelius and Celerinus, both of whom had confessed the Faith of JESUS CHRIST, and signified this Ordination immediately after to his Clergy and People, in his 32d and 33d Letters, wherein he excuses himself for having Ordained them be∣fore he had consulted his Church, because we need not stay for the Testimony of Men, when we have that of GOD. He gives them both an extraordinary Character for their Virtue, and the great Constancy they shewed in suffering for the Christian Faith. He says, they deserved to be advanced to the highest Dignities of the Church, but that he judged it more convenient to Ordain them only Readers, because they were so very young: That in the mean time he designed to make them Priests; and therefore ordered them to give them their Distributions, as if they were so already. At the same time he associated Numidicus the Priest to his Clergy, who was as illustrious for the Strictness of his Virtue and Faith, as for the Glory of his Confession; for after he had, by his Exhortations, sent a great Number of Martyrs to GOD before him, who were either burnt or stoned to Death, and saw his Wife, whom he entirely loved, cast, amongst several others, into the Fire, with Joy, he himself was half burnt, bruised with Stones, and left for Dead. This is related in the 34th Letter, which was writ in his Favour.

In the beginning of the Year 257, the Confessors that were in Prison at Carthage, being set at Li∣berty, some of them were licentious in their Behaviour. St. Cyprian being informed of it, writ two Letters, one to his Clergy, and the other to the Confessors. In the first, which is the 5th according to Pamelius's Order, he sends his Clergy word, that he earnestly desired to come back to Carthage, but that the time not permitting him to do it, he conjured them to supply his Absence, to have a par∣ticular Care of the Poor, and to exhort the Confessors not to lose the Honour of their glorious Con∣fession by their Sins, but to suffer themselves to be governed by the Priests and Deacons; that as for himself, he could not regulate the Affairs of his Church alone, having obliged himself, when he was first made Bishop, to do nothing of his own Head, without the Advice of his Clergy, and the Consent of the People.

In the Letter which he writ at the same time to the Confessors, he advises them to a strict Obser∣vance of the Discipline of the Church, least otherwise they should seem to renounce JESUS CHRIST, by their irregular way of Living, whom they had confessed before with their Tongues. He com∣mends those who behaved themselves discreetly, and vigorously reprehends the rest; he exhorts all Christians to live soberly, and to forsake all Vices, that so they may be perfectly changed, and be∣come perfect, when Peace, which GOD promises to send in a short time, shall be restored to the Church. He gives the same Advice to his Clergy in the 7th Letter, where he tells them, that as the Persecution had been occasioned by the Corruptions of the Manners of the Christians, so it would be impossible to obtain a Cessation of it from GOD, by any other Means, than offering up Prayers to him in the Spirit of Union, and living a Vertuous Life. Soon after the writ the 35th Letter to his Clergy, wherein he assures them, that he passionately desired to come and see them, but that he was obliged to have a Regard to the Peace of the Church; and he was afraid that his Presence might ex∣asperate the Pagans; that as soon as ever they sent him word that all was calm, and GOD should inform him of it, he would speedily repair to them, In the mean time he recommended the Poor to their Care, and sent some Money to Rogatianus the Priest, to supply their Necessities; as also to re∣lieve Strangers, and those that were Sick.

St. Cyprian being not in a Capacity at that time to go to Carthage, dispatched two Bishops, whose Names were Caldonius and Fortunatus, to relieve the Poor with Money, and to examine those Persons who were thought worthy to be chosen into Ecclesiastical Offices. Felicissimus, who had always ca∣balled against St. Cyprian, and asserted, that it was necessary to admit those that had fallen into a Re∣conciliation, hindred these Alms and Examinations, as much as lay in his Power, and threatned to se∣parate himself from those that should receive any thing, and obey their Bishop. After this, he retired to a Mountain, with those of his own Party, and declared himself their Head. St. Cyprian being in∣formed of this Defection, writ to the two Bishops, signifying, that since Felicissimus had threatned to communicate no longer with those who were in his Place, he would deprive him, and all the rest of his Faction, from the Communion of the Church; and that, setting this Crime aside, he deserved to be Excommunicated for the Rapines, the Cheating, and Adulteries of which he was accused. This Letter is the 37th. He writ likewise the 39th Letter to his own People, wherein, after he had re∣presented what a Grief it was to him, that this Disturbance retarded his Return, he remonstrates with some Vehemence, that as there is but one Church, so there is but one Chair in every Church, whereof the Bishop is Master; that we cannot set up Altar against Altar, nor establish a new Priest-hood; and that those who revolt from their Bishop, and separate themselves from his Communion, are out of the Church. In short he threatens, at the same time, to exclude those for ever, who should joyn themselves to Felicissimus. Caldonius, Fortunatus, and the rest of St. Cyprian's Clergy, had no sooner received these Letters, but they excommunicated Felicissimus, and those of his Cabal, and acquainted St. Cyprian with it in the 83d Letter. And thus I have given the true Order, as∣well as the Subject of all those Letters that were written to St. Cyprian, during the time of his first Banishment.

The Order of the Letters written after his Return is less perplexed and confused in Pamelius's Edi∣tion than that of the former. The 40th and 41st Letters are the first in this second Order, and are addressed to Cornelius, St. Cyprian had sent him word of all that had passed in Africk, upon the

Difference he had with Novatian, and informed him q 1.450 of the Faction of Felicissimus. At the same time also he writ the 43d Letter to the Confessors of Rome, to disswade them from Novatian's Party, and gave Cornelius information of it in the 42d Letter, wherein he acquaints him, that he had given Orders to his Subdeacon Metius, who carried it, to shew it to him, lest he should suspect him to en∣tertain a Commerce with the Schismaticks. In the mean time, Primittivus the Priest, who had carri∣ed St. Cyprian's first Letter from Cartbage, being returned thither, brought him a Letter from Corne∣lius, in which he complains that the Letters that were sent him from Adrumetum, were not directed to him, but to his Clergy, ever since Juvenalis and St. Cyprian were arrived there. To this St. Cypri∣an answers in the 44th Letter, that the Reason of this was, because they had acquainted the Christi∣ans of that Colony with a Decision lately made in Africk, which, by reason of their Bishop's Absence, they were ignorant of, viz. That they should neither write to Novatian nor Cornelius, but to the Clergy of Rome, till they had received certain News from Caldonius and Fortumatus; and that since Cor∣nelius's Ordination was now approved of by all the World, he himself in particular had writ about it to all the African Bishops. Towards the end of this Letter he prays, That GOD, who chose and esta∣blished Bishops, would not only vouchsafe to protect and defend them, but give them Grace and Knowledge necessary to repress the Licentiousness of Offenders with Vigor, and to manage the good Inclinations of the Penitents with Gentleness and Clemency.

In the mean time the Confessors of the Church of Rome returning from their Error, and being re∣ceived by Cornelius in an Assembly of the Roman Clergy, where five Bishops made their Appearance; Cornelius communicated this News to St. Cyprian in the 45th Letter, which he sent to him by the Hands of the Acolyth Nicephorus, wherein he gives him a particular Account of whatever had passed in relation to the Confessors, and how they had acknowledged their Fault, and desired to be pub∣lickly pardoned, owning that they had been abused by the Persidiousness and Artifices of Novatian; and that, though they had communicated with him, yet they were always in their Hearts united to the Church, and acknowledged at the bottom, that as there was but one God, one Christ, and one Holy Ghost, so there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholick Church: That after this solemn Profession, they had been received with the Approbation of the People; and that they had granted the Favour to Maximus the Priest, to keep his Rank and Dignity. The Person that carried this, brought St. Cyprian another Letter from Cornelius, wherein he informs him of the Departure of Nova∣tus and his Companions, Nicostratus the Deacon, Evaristus the Bishop, Primus and Dionysius: This is the 47th Letter. St. Cyprïan having received these two Letters, answered them by two others. In the first, which is the 46th, he rejoyces with Cornelius at the Return of the Confessors. In the second, which is the 48th, he paints Novatus in his true Colours, and accuses him of several Crimes. He tells him, it was he, who by his Caballing, had got Felicissimus to be ordained a Deacon in Africk; and that coming to Rome afterwards, he had been the Cause of Novatian's being Ordained; but that it was no wonder that this Man could not continue in the Church, who had violated all the Laws of Chri∣stian Morality, the Ecclesiastical Discipline; that he had plundered the Otphans and Widows; that he had cheated the Churches, by laying out their Money to other Uses; that he had suffered his own Father to die of meer Poverty; and that he had been the Cause of his Wife's proving Abortive, by Kicking and Ill-using her; that he ought not only to be deprived of the Pristhood, but also of the Communion of the Church, for his Crimes; and that he had prevented the Judgment which the Bi∣shops ought to have passed against him by his voluntary Separation. At the same time likewise, the Confessors of Rome writ to St. Cyprian, signifying, that after they had deliberated among themselves, concerning the Welfare and Peace of the Church, forgetting what had passed, and leaving the Judg∣ment of it to God, they had reconciled themselves to Cornelius, to the Clergy, and all the Church of Rome. St. Cyprian congratulated them upon their Return, in such a manner as sufficiently testified the Joy he had at such welcome News; as also the Sorrow he had formerly entertained at their falling away. These Letters in Pamelius's Edition, are the 49th and 50th.

Towards the beginning of the Year 252, Antoninus an African Bishop, who had been of Cornelius's Side, having received a Letter from Novatian, to acquaint him, that Cornelius had received Trophimus, and several other Persons who had offered Incense to Idols, was a little staggered at it, and writ to St. Cyprian, praying him to inform him what was Novatian's Heresie, and why Cornelius had received Trophimus, and the other Apostates. St. Cyprian perceiving him to waver, endeavoured to confirm him by a long Letter; wherein, after he has justified the Conduct that was observed at Rome and in Africk, concerning those that were fallen, he defends Cornelius, and demonstrates the Validity of his Ordination. He begins it with making a sort of a Reproach to this Bishop for his In∣constancy, telling him, it by no means became discreet Persons, who had built their Judgments upon solid Grounds, to suffer themselves to be carried away with every Wind, and to be always changing their Opinions. After this he proceeds to justifie the Measures that were taken with those that had fallen into Idolatry, whether by taking Certificates, or Sacrificing to Idols. He tells him, as long as the Persecution lasted, he had been of Opinion, that it was their Duty to deny them Reconciliation, to encourage them the better to suffer Martyrdom; but that after Peace was once restored to the Church, and after a mature Deliberation upon this Affair, in a numerous Assembly of Bishops, it was thought convenient to keep a Temper, not by taking away all Hopes of Pardon from those that had

fallen, for fear they should live as Pagans, when they saw themselves intirely shut out of the Church, but by obliging them to undergo a long Penance before they could be reconciled; that this had been regulated in Councils of several Bishops, held in Africk and at Rome. He afterwards comes to the Person and Ordination of Cornelius, and tells him, that he had not all on the sudden arrived to the E∣piscopacy, but that he had formerly passed through all the Ecclesiastical Dignities; that he had neither desired it, nor stickled for it, but that he had received it with all Humility; that, in a word, he had used no manner of Violence, as some have done, to get himself made a Bishop, but that he had suf∣fered it rather in receiving the Episcopacy against his Will, Non ut quidam vim fecit, ut Episcopus fie∣ret, sed vim passus est ut Episcopation coactus acciperet; that he had been elected Bishop by several Bishops, who happened to be then at Rome, in expectation of the Choice of the Clergy, and the Suffrages of the People, and with the general Approbation of all Churches, the See being at that time vacant by the Death of Fabian; that after this Ordination, which was approved by all the Bishops in the World, whoever would get himself ordained in the See of Rome, must necessarily be out of the Church; that no Credit was to be given to the secret Calumnies that were published against him; that his Col∣leagues, after they had diligently examined the Accusations of his Enemies, found him to be Inno∣cent; that he had never received any Certificates from the Magistrates, nor communicated with those Bishops that had Offered Incense to Idols, but that he had followed the Regulations which the whole Church had made concerning Apostates; that as for Trophimus, he had only received him for the Good of the Church, and to procure the Return of several Christians, whom he had brought along with him back again to the Church; that for this Reason he had been received, but on this Conditi∣on, to be in the Number of the Laity, and not as the Novatians had reported, in Quality of a Bishop; that since the Benefit of Reconciliation was allowed to Adulterers and Robbers, he saw no reason why Idolaters should be totally excluded; that amongst these, some were more to be blamed than others, that the Libellatici, [Those who had Certificates of their having Sacrificed, though they had never done it,] were more excusable than those that had sacrificed to Idols; that the first of these had been reconciled immediately, and that it had been determined, that Absolution should not be refused the latter upon the Point of Death, because there was no Repentance in Hell, with Exception always to those who deferred to do Penance till they were in Danger. After this he largely proves and demon∣strates the reasonableness of this Conduct.

He observes that some of his Predecessors formerly had absolutely refused Absolution to Adulterers, but that they had not therefore condemned their Brethren, who acted indifferently, nor torn the Church, by making a Separation; that no body ought to be alarmed at what Novatian taught, since he was out of the Bosom of the Church; that he could not be Bishop of Rome, since the Roman See was filled by Cornelius, who had been legally Ordained, and whose Ordination had been approved by all the Bishops in the World; that the Church being a Body whose Members were spread over all the Earth after the same manner, there was only one Episcopacy diffused in the Person of several Bishops united together; and that though Novatian had been rightly Ordained, yet he forfeited that Dignity by separating himself from his Colleagues, and disturbing the Repose of the Church, and that there were no hopes of Salvation for him, being out of the Church. In short, St. Cyprian shews that it is cruel and unreasonable to oblige Sinners, as Novatian had done, to undergo Penance, and yet refuse them the Favour of Reconciliation, to exhort them to make satisfaction for their Sins, and yet deny them that Cure which their Satisfaction deserves to say to them, Weep and Sigh Night and Day, Wash your Sins in your Tears, endeavour to efface them by your good Works, and yet at the same time add, you must die out of the Church; do all you can to procure your Peace, though you shall never be able to obtain the Peace you so earnestly desire.

But Cornelius did not defend St. Cyprian at Rome with the same Resolution and Constancy as this Saint defended his Party in Africk; for Felicissimus arriving there with a Company of factious Persons, to get the Ordination of Fortunatus approved, whom he had caused to be Ordained in opposition to St. Cyprian, Carnelius at first rejected him, and turned him out of the Church, without vouchsafing so much as to hearken to him, and writ to St. Cyprian about it. But seeing no body came from St. Cyprian, and that he had sent him no Directions about it, whereas on the other hand it was openly discoursed, That Fortunatus had been ordained by Twenty five Bishops; that St. Cyprian favoured the Party of the Novatians, and that if the Church of Rome refused to receive the Letters which they brought against him, they would read them in Publick. The Pope was not a little affrighted at the Menaces, and wrote a second Letter to St. Cyprian, wherein he acquaints him that he was sensibly concerned at these Accusations, and wondred why he would omit to give him Satisfaction in this Affair. St. Cyprian surprized at the Boldness of Felicissimus, and the Weakness of Cornelius, returns him o generous Answer, in which he tacitely reprehends him for a this Procedure. He tells him, that if the Insolence of Wicked Men renders them terrible to Bishops, and that if they can obtain by Menaces and Violence what they could never pretend to get by Reason and the regular Course of Justice, then there is an end of Episcopacy. As for himself, he declares, that he feared not the Ob∣loquies of his Enemies; that Discipline must not therefore be laid aside, because we are reviled with Calumnies, and ill-affected Persons endeavour to affright us by their threatning Speeches; that the Original of Heresies and Schisms is solely owing to the Disobedience shewn to the Bishop, whom God has established; and because People don't consider that there is only one Bishop and Judge in a Church, who for that time supplies the Place of Jesus Christ; that a Bishop being once Canonically Elected, and acquitting himself worthily in the Functions of his Ministry, whoever separates from him does actually withdraw himself from the Church; that we ought not to impute this Loss to the

Bishop, but to themselves, who voluntarily chose it; that the Reason why Bishops are obliged to have so great a Care in the Discharge of their Consciences, is that no body might pretend to leave the Church for their ill Administration; that his own Election was without any Blemish, as having been substituted in the room of a deceased Bishop, Elected by the Suffrages of the People in the time of Peace, protected by God in his Persecution, united inviolably to his Colleagues, approved by the vi∣gilant Administration of his Office for four years, demanded often in the Cirque and Amphitheatre to be exposed to Lions, and that very lately too upon the occasion of a publick Sacrifice. He informs him at last with all that had passed in Africk concerning the false Bishop Fortunatus, who was set up by the Faction of Felicissimus, and ordained by Privatus of Lambesa a Heretick, particularly marked out in the Letters of Fabian and Donatus, and condemned in a Council of Nine Bishops. He tells him, that he forbore to write to him concerning this Matter, because he supposed he knew him well enough, since he was one of the five Priests who had separated themselves from his Church a long while ago, and because he himself had ejected Felicissimus, the Chief of that Faction, out of the Church; that Novatus's Party had likewise chosen one Maximus an African Bishop, and that he had scarce troubled himself to write about these Matters now, but since Fortunatus boasted that he was Ordained by Twenty five Bishops, he assures Cornelius, that except the Heretick Privatus of Lambesa, there was only four Bishops, and those too all Apostates, that assisted at his Ordination. After this, he accuses Felicissimus, and those of his Faction, for reconciling those that had fallen in the time of Persecution, without staying till they had done Penance for their Crime, contrary to the Decree of the African Council. He likewise describes the furious Excesses of this Cabal, and adds;

After all these Irregularities, after having Elected an Heretick to be a Bishop, they have still the Impudence to go to Rome, and carry Letters from Schismaticks to the Chair of St. Peter, to that Chief Church' which is the Spring of Sacerdotal Unity. But what can their Design be, since they are still resolved to persevere in their Crimes? Or what Benefit can they expect from going to Rome? If they re∣pent of their Faults, they ought to understand that they must come back again hither to receive Absolution for them, since it is an Order established all the World over, and indeed but reasonable, that every ones Cause should be Examined where the Crime was committed. Every Pastor has received a part of Jesus Christ's Flock to govern, and shall render an Account of his Actions to God alone. Upon this ac∣count it is not to be allowed, that those Persons who are under our Charge, should run to and fro, and sow Dissention amongst Bishops by their Temerity and Artifices; but on the other hand, it is necessary for them to defend themselves in that Place, where they may be confronted by their Ac∣cusers, and the Witnesses of their Crimes. Their Cause has been examined, Sentence has been pro∣nounced against them, and it would be below the Gravity of Bishops to be justly reproached with being Wavering and Inconstant.

He concludes all with laying open the Method which he used with Schismaticks, that were desirous to come back again to the Church. He says that he is extrem∣ly indulgent to those who acknowledge their Fault, and are heartily concerned for it; that his People complain of his Clemency, and that he rather offends by being too mild than too severe, but that at the same time he continues inexorable to those that pretend to enter the Church by Menaces and Force. They ought to be perswaded, says he, that the Church shall be always shut against them. He adds, That he was not in the least apprehensive of their Threats, and that a Bishop who conforms himself to the Rules of the Gospel, and keeps the Precepts of Jesus Christ, may perhaps be murdered, but can never be overcome. At last, he warns and conjures Cornelius to order this Letter to be read to his flourishing Clergy that presided at Rome together with him, that so if these malicious Reports, that were industriously spread about him, had left any ill Impression, it might be entirely effaced by the Reading of this Letter. It was writ four years after his Election to the Bishoprick, that is to say, in the Year 252.

r 1.451 About April, in the very same year, St. Cyprian, who had been consulted by Fidus an African Bishop, upon the occasion of a Priest, whose Name was Victor, to whom his own Bishop Therapius had granted Reconciliation, and upon the Baptism of Infants, proposed these Questions in a Council of Sixty six Bishops, who were come to Carthage at the Festival of Easter, according to the Custom. They were surprized to hear that Therapius had so strangely slighted the Authority of a Decree which

they had Synodically passed the Year before; but nevertheless, after they had maturely weighed e∣very thing, they were of Opinion that the Reconciliation he had received from his Bishop was not to be reversed, and so they permitted him to enjoy Lay-Communion, contenting themselves with Ad∣monishing their Colleague, and advising him to do so no more for the time to come. As for what concerned the Baptism of Infants, they declared it was necessary to Baptize them immediately after their Birth, and that there lay no Obligation upon Christians to tarry till the 8th day. St. Cyprian returns this Answer to Fidus in his Fifty Eighth Letter.

Soon after, St. Cyprian being consulted by some of his Brethren, who were assembled at Thapsus to ordain a Bishop, about the Case of some Penitents in the City of Thapsus, who having generously con∣fessed Jesus Christ, had at last yielded to the Violence of their Torments, but had done Penance for it three years afterwards; he answers them in the Two and fiftieth Letter, that in his Opinion, they ought by no means to refuse Pardon to such sort of Persons; that their generous Confession ought to attone for the Infirmity of the Flesh, and that, since it had been judged expedient to grant Reconcilia∣tion at the Hour of Death, to all those that had fallen, we ought to shew greater Indulgence to those who had maintained the Combat a long time, than to those who had yielded merely through Cowar∣dise: Nevertheless, since this was a Question of great importance, he promises to propose it to the Synod that was to meet about Easter.

About this time also he writ against Fortunatianus, who had been Bishop of Assuri, his Sixty third Letter, directed to Epictetus, who was Elected in his Place, and to the People of that City. This Fortunatianus had the unhappiness to fall into Idolatry, and was upon that account divested of his Bi∣shoprick: After his Deprivation he laboured earnestly to re-possess himself of it, and to perform his re∣spective Functions as formerly. St. Cyprian condemns these Proceedings in this Letter, wherein he demonstrates how necessary a thing Sanctity is to make our Sacrifices acceptable, and advises the Peo∣ple not to suffer him to exercise his Office, but to separate from him, in case he continued in his De∣sign. Towards the end of this Letter, he exhorts the Penitents that were amongst them, not to be impatient at the length of their Penance, but to endeavour to satisfie God, and to continue knocking at the Gate of the Church: Which Passage evidently discovers, that it was writ before the Decree of the Council of Carthage, which granted Absolution to all Penitents.

This Council was held in the Year 253, about the time that the Emperors Gallus and Volusian dis∣patched Letters to all Parts, to oblige the People to Sacrifice to Idols: so that the Christians had rea∣son enough to apprehend a general Persecution. Now to encourage them the more to fight a∣gainst the Enemies of their Faith, the African Bishops thought it convenient to grant Reconciliation to those who were in a State of Penance since their Fall, and having accordingly determined it in this Assembly, they writ a Letter to Cornelius, which is the 53d amongst those of St. Cyprian, to acquaint him with their Decree, and to advise him to do the like: They represented to him, that though they had resolved to prolong the Penance of Apostates, and not to reconcile them till the Hour of Death, yet since they were informed that the Church was going to be persecuted, they judged it ex∣pedient to strengthen the Christians, that so they might the better bear the Attacks of their Enemies, and to animate them to the Combat, by giving them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which would inspire them with Vigour to suffer Martyrdom couragiously. That if there were any Bishops who thought themselves obliged to do otherwise, it would certainly lye at their Doors, to render an Account to God of so ill-timed a Severity; that as for themselves, they had only done what they owed to Charity, as well as to their own Consciences, by declaring, that the time of Persecution drew near, and not hiding that which God had revealed to his Servants. A little after this Decree, St. Cyprian writ an excellent Letter to the Thibaritans, which is the 55th in Pamelius's Order, wherein he exhorts them in a very vigorous and moving manner, to suffer undauntedly for Jesus Christ.

Some time after, St. Cyprian being informed that Cornelius was sent into Banishment with many of the Faithful of Rome, he writ immediately to him to congratulate him upon the account of his Con∣stancy, which he had so visibly shewn by being the first of his Church, that confessed the Name of Je∣sus Christ: He extols his Action, and from thence takes oceasion to triumph over Novatian, saying, that the Confession of Cornelius had evidently discovered which of those two was the true Bishop; and that the Constancy of those who had fallen away in Decius's Persecution, sufficiently proved, that there was good reason to reconcile them to the Church. At last he exhorts Cornelius to pass Night and Day with all his People in Fasting, Watching, and continual Praying, because the Day of Com∣bat and Triumph was at hand.

It was perhaps at this time, that is to say, towards the end of the Reign of Gallus and Volusian, that the Empire being invaded on all sides by the Barbarians; and several Christians happening to be taken Captives by them in Numidia, the Bishops of that Country contributed to redeem them, and wrote to St. Cyprian, desiring him to assist them in that Conjuncture.

St. Cyprian intimates to them in the 59th Letter, that he was extremely afflicted at the Misfortune that had befall'n his Brethren, that Christians, being all Brothers one to another, ought to be con∣cerned at the Captivity of the Faithful, who were carried away Prisoners, as much as if it were their own Case: That their Suffering ought to represent to them the Person of Jesus Christ, who made him∣self a Captive to deliver us from the Captivity, wherein we were inthraled: That the extreme Peril of the Virgins, who were consecrated to God, and had reason to apprehend the loss of their Virgini∣ty, was a convincing Motive to hasten their Delivery. He tells them therefore, that he returns them his Thanks, because they were willing to let him have a Share in their Works of Charity, and for giving him a fertile Field to cast his Seed in, that so he might one day reap a plentiful Harvest out of it: That all the Christians of his Church had readily and liberally contributed to raise a Sum of Mo∣ney upon this Occasion: That he had sent them this Sum, which amounted to an Hundred thousand Sesterces, that is to say, the 7500 Livres, to distribute it as they should think fit, and together with it, the Names of those who had contributed towards it, that so they might remember them in their Prayers and Sacrifices.

Lucius, who was Elected Bishop of Rome, after the Death of Cornelius, being now returned from his Exile, where he had been sent immediately after his Election; St. Cyprian writ the 57th Letter, wherein he congratulates him at the same time, both upon the Score of his Banishment and his Re∣turn; as he had before writ a Letter to him, to Compliment him for s 1.452 his Election and glorious Confession.

About the same time Pupienus, an African Bishop, giving Credit to the Calumnies which Felicissimus, and the Enemies of St. Cyprian had published against him, writ him a very disobliging Letter, where∣in he assured him, that he could not with a safe Conscience communicate with him, because he did not look upon his Ordination to be lawful; and upon that he accuses him of Pride, and of being the Occasion of the Divisions that were in his Church. St. Cyprian answered him in the Sixty eighth Let∣ter, That he wondred extremely how he came to call his Ordination in question, after he had been elected Bishop of Carthage, by the Consent of the Clergy and People, that is to say, by the Judgment of God himself, and had exercised that Function for the space of six years, which shews, that this Letter was writ in the Year 254. That it had been approved by all the World, and acknowledged even by the Pagans themselves; That an infinite Number of Prelates, Martyrs, Confessors, and holy Virgins had owned him for their lawful Bishop; that after this, he desired Pupienus to judge in his Favour, and to ratifie the judgment of God, and of Jesus Christ; That he had done him wrong in listning to scandalous Calumnies, and such too as were justly punishable, against his Brother, and against a Bi∣shop; That even the Pagans were sensible of the Effects of his Humility, and that Pupienus had for∣merly known him when he communicated with him; That there were no Divisions in his Church, be∣cause all his People lived in a wonderful Union with him; and that those only continued without the Church, who deserved to be ejected out of it, if they had been within. After this, he exhorts Pupie∣nus to repent of his Rashness and Pride, and promises to communicate with him, provided he is sorry for his Crime, and endeavours truly to satisfie God. He tells him, that God had informed him in a Vision, That whosoever would not believe in Jesus Christ, when he established a Bishop, should be∣lieve him against his Will, when he came to take Vengeance upon him; That he very well knew, that the World made these Visions and Dreams pass for ridiculous, ill grounded Imaginations, but that the same thing had been said of Joseph's Dreams. At last, he concludes with these Words: You have my Letter, and I have yours; they will both be read on the Day of Judgment, before the Tribunal of Jesus Christ.

Towards the beginning of Pope Stephen's Pontificate, St. Cyprian was consulted by the Bishops of France and Spain, about two Affairs of great Consequence. To give the Reader a short Account of that which related to France, he is to know, That the Heresie of Novatian having spread it self in that Country, Marcianus, Bishop of Arles, being infected with it, joyned himself to Novatian, and brought over several Persons to his Party. And because he was not excommunicated by Name, he arrogantly insulted over his Brethren. Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, and the other Bishops of that Province, writ to Stephen and St. Cyprian about it, earnestly desiring that they would concur with them in excommu∣cating Marcianus. Stephen neglecting to send them any Answer, Faustinus writ the Second time to St. Cyprian about it, t 1.453 who advised Stephen in the Sixty sixth Letter, to satisfie the Desires of the Gal∣lican Bishops, and dispatch Letters into Provence, and principally to the Inhabitants of the City of Arles, wherein he should declare Marcian Excommunicated, and give them notice to elect another

Bishop in his Room. He remonstrates to him, that since this Bishop had joyned himself to Novatian, who was notoriously excommunicated, there was no necessity of having a new Judgment against him; that all Bishops were obliged to take care that Admission into the Church should not be denied to Pe∣nitents; that the numerous Body of Bishops being united to one another, by a Bond of mutual Cha∣rity, they were all bound, in case any one should make himself Chief of an Heresie, or the Flock of Jesus Christ, which they feed in common, should be attacked or carried away, to come to their Re∣lief, and to re-unite the Sheep of Jesus Christ, like good Shepherds that truly love their Flock.

The Bishops of Spain likewise had recourse to St. Cyprian, about an Affair of the same Nature, Basi∣lides and Martialis, one the Bishop of Leon, the other of Astorga, having been publickly proved to have taken Certificates of their having Sacrificed, and convicted of several other Crimes, were de∣posed, and Felix and Sabinus elected in their Places. Basilides owning his Crime, had voluntarily quitted his Bishoprick, and was placed in the Rank of Penitents, where he thought himself over hap∣py, if he could but communicate as a Laick: Nevertheless, these two Bishops being afterwards push∣ed on by their Ambition and Envy, used their utmost Endeavours to regain their Sees; and finding they could not compass their Designs there, they went to Rome, not to demand their re-establishment from Stephen, but only that he would be pleased to admit them to his Communion, which they said would be very serviceable to them to procure their Re-establishment, They acted their Parts so dexterously, that Stephen granted them what they requested; so upon this they went back to Spain, where they became more insolent than ever, and would by all means re-possess themselves of their Sees by Force. The Clergy and People of Spain writ to St. Cyprian about it, and deputed Felix and Sabinus, who were ordained Bishops in the room of these two Apostates, to go to him, to know what they were to do in this Exigence. But Felix, Bishop of Saragossa, whom St. Cyprian calls a great Defen∣der of the Faith, writ to him likewise in particular. The Saint judging this to be an Action of no small Importance, read the Letters sent him from Spain, in a Synod of the African Bishops, who, af∣ter they had diligently examined the matter, came to this Resolution, That the Deposition of Basili∣des and Martialis ought to stand good, as well as the Ordination of Felix and Sabinus in their Place. They writ a Synodical Letter concerning it to the Clergy and People of Leon and Astorga, which is placed the 67th, amongst those of St. Cyprian, and sent them word, that they had no reason to suffer Basilides and Martialis to re-enter upon their Episcopal Functions, after they had been found guilty of such enormous Crimes, and Basilides himself had acknowledged so much; that since the People had Power to elect good Bishops, and to reject the bad, they would appear culpable before God, if they communicated any longer with them; That the Ordination of Felix and Sabinus was lawful, since it was made with the Consent of the People by the neighbouring Bishops; That it ought not to be re∣versed, though Basilides had surprized Stephen, who, by reason of his great distance from the Place,

could not exactly inform himself of the truth of Affairs; That this Conduct was so far from effacing their Crimes, that on the other hand it augmented their Guilt, because though Stephen was in some sort excusable for suffering himself to be deceived merely out of Negligence; yet we ought to have a Detestation for those Persons, who had so maliciously imposed upon his Easiness; That they extremely commended their Faith and Zeal, and desired them to maintain a Correspendence no more with Bishops of such a profligate Character, who were notorious for so many Crimes.

u 1.454 In the same Year another Synod of Bishops was held in Carthage, who being consulted by Janu∣arius, and the rest of the Numidian Bishops about the Baptism of Hereticks, returned them this Answer, that it was necessary to re-baptize all those who had been Baptized by Hereticks, according to the ancient Regulation made by Agrippinus in Africk.

St. Cyprian writ the same Year to one Quintus, a Bishop, who had ordered the same Question to be put to him by Lucian the Priest. This Letter is the 71st, as Pamelius has ranged them. He assures him, that some of his Brethren were of a different Opinion from him in this Affair, who pretended that it was the ancient Custom before Agrippinus, not to re-baptize Hereticks after they had been once admitted into the Church. To weaken the Authority of this pretended Custom, he lays it down for an undoubted Truth, that we are not to be determined by any Customs of that Nature, but to exa∣mine whether they will bear the Test of Reason; That St. Peter, in his Dispute with St. Paul upon the Business of Circumcision, did not treat that Apostle with Arrogance and Pride; That he never al∣ledged his Primacy, or told him, that the new Disciples of Jesus Christ, as St. Paul was, who had like∣wise been a Periecutor of the Church, ought blindly to obey him, and not to question his Decisions, but gave him the Hearing, and humbly received the Counsel of Truth which St. Paul gave him, and rea∣dily submitted to the powerful Reasons of that Apostle, teaching us by that Behaviour to be peaceable and Patient, and not to espouse our own Opinions with Heat and Obstinacy, but to embrace the Ad∣vices of our Brethren, when-ever they are useful and agreeable to Truth.

Some time after this, St. Cyprian assembled at Carthage a Council of Seventy one Bishops, as well of the Province of Africk as Numidia, who confirmed all that had been determined by the preceding Sy∣nod, concerning the Baptism of Hereticks, and decreed, that all Priests and Deacons who were or∣dained amongst them, or who, after having been some time of their Party, returned to the Church, should be received only in the Quality of Laicks: And after this, to maintain that Honour and Friend∣ship which Bishops owed to one another, they acquainted Pope Stephen with these Constitutions, by a Synodical Letter, which is the Seventy second amongst those of St. Cyprian in Pamelius's Order, and towards the end of it represented to him, that since the things they had ordained were conformable to the Christian Religion, and to Truth, they hoped he would make no difficulty to approve them; That nevertheless they knew there were some Bishops in the World, who could be hardly perswaded to change their Opinions, and yet though they kept up their own particular Customs, would never break the Laws of Peace and Charity; That after the same manner they would not pretend to pre∣scribe Laws, or constrain any Persons, since they were satisfied that every Bishop was free to behave himself, as he saw expedient in the Administration of his own Church, for which he was accounta∣ble to God alone.

About the same time likewise, St. Cyprian immediately after this Council, writ a long Letter to Ju∣baianus a Bishop, who had also consulted him about this Question, wherein he urges abundance of Reasons, and Texts of Scripture to support his own Opinion; and after he has answered the Objecti∣ons that were brought against it, concludes with this new Protestation, that he had not the least Design to impose Laws upon any of his Colleagues, or to fall out with them upon this Occasion, but inviola∣bly to preserve Faith and Charity, the Dignity of the Priesthood, and Concord with his Brethren. Stephen having answered St. Cyprian very roughly, Pompey Bishop of Sabra, a Maritime City of A∣frick, desired him to let him know what Stephen had writ to him. So he sent him a Copy of the Letter, with another of his own, wherein he bestows a particular Answer upon the Pope's Letter, which is the Seventy third, as Pamelius has placed them. In it he principally opposes the Truth of the Gospel, and the first Traditions of the Apostles, both to the Custom and Tradition which Pope Stephen had alledged for himself. He sent likewise by Rogatianus the Deacon, another Copy of Ste∣phen's Letter to Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and to the other Bishops, giving them an Account of what had been determined in Africk upon this Question, and desiring them to acquaint him with the Opinion of their respective Churches. He could not have expected a more favourable Answer than what he received from Firmilian, for that Bishop openly condemns, and that in Terms severe enough the Procedure of Stephen; extols St. Cyprian's Conduct, declares himself entirely in fa∣vour of the last, proves it by several Reasons, and assures him it was the ancient Custom of the Asia∣tick Churches; and that it had been regulated many years before in two numerous Synods held at

Synnada and Iconium. This Letter of Firmilian, which is the Seventy fourth amongst those of St. Cy∣prian, x 1.455 was written in Autumn in the Year 256.

Before this Letter came to St. Cyprian's hands, he writ, to Magnus, who had asked his Opinion about the Baptism of the N••vatians, whether these Hereticks were to be excepted out of the Number of those who were to be re-baptized, since they owned the same Faith as the Catholicks did in relation to the Trinity, and Baptized after the same manner. He answers him, I say, y 1.456 in the Seventy fifth Letter, that they ought to be re-baptized as well as the rest, forasmuch as there was no true Baptism out of the Church. In this Letter he answers another Question, proposed to him by Magnus, con∣cerning the Baptism of Clinicks, that is to say, of those that were Baptized in their Sickness, that there was no reason to doubt of the Validity of this Baptism; That the Sacrament was equally efficacious, whether the Person was plunged in the Water, or had it sprinkled upon him. He concludes with re∣peating his usual Protestation, that he would give Laws to none, but leave them an entire Liberty of doing what they thought convenient, and that every one must give an Account of his Conduct to GOD alone.

Thus we have given an exact Account of all the Letters extant in St. Cyprian's Works, that treat of the Baptism of Hereticks. To these we ought to add the Acts of the last Council of Carthage, con∣sisting of Eighty seven Bishops, who assembled there the same Year in the Month of September. In the first place, the Letters of Jubaianus to St. Cyprian, and those of St. Cyprian to that Bishop, were read in the Council. After that St. Cyprian proposed to all the Bishops that were present, to deliver their Opinions freely, but yet so as not to condemn or excommunicate those that were of a different Judgment.

For none of us, says he, ought to make himself a Bishop of Bishops, or pretend to awe his Brethren by a Tyranical Fear, because every Bishop is at liberty to do as he pleases, and can no more be judged by another, than he can judge others himself. But all of us ought to wait and tarry for the Judgment of Jesus Christ, who alone has Authority to set us over the Church, and to judge our Actions.

After this Proposition the Bishops gave their Opinions, and concluded all in Favour of St. Cyprian.

The Persecution of Valerian, that was raised against the Church in the Year 257, put an end to the Controversie about the Baptism of Hereticks. This Emperor, who was pushed on by Marcianus, a professed Enemy to the Christians, and a great Protector of the Aegyptian Superstitions, declared himself against the Christians, and published an Edict against them in July that very Year, where∣by he prohibited them to meet in the Coemeteries, or any where else upon Pain of Death. Pope Stephen having been found in a Coemetery, contrary to the Emperor's Prohibition, suffer∣ed Martyrdom for it on the Twentieth of August the same Year, and z 1.457 Xystus was Elected in his Place.

On the 30th day of the same Month. St. Cyprian generously confessed the Christian Faith before Paternus, the Proconsul, and was banished to Curubis. At the same time the Praefect of Numidia con∣demned several Christians to the Mines, and amongst the rest many Bishops and Priests of his Province after he had put some of them to Death, and ordered others to be scourged. St. Cyprian, from the place of his Exile, sent them a Letter, which according as Pamelius has distributed them is the 76th, and is the first of the 4th Part of St Cyprian's Letters. In it, with wonderful Eloquence he heightens the glory of their Confession, and encourages them to suffer with Constancy. He comforts them in their difficulties, and principally the Priests that were not able to offer Sacrifice in those places, by representing to them that they them∣selves continually offer'd up their own Bodies as living Sacrifices to the Lord. He excites them at last to use more fervency in their Prayers, that so God may give Grace to all the Confessors, to finish their Course couragiously, in order to be crown'd with everlasting Glory. He sent this Letter to three different places, where these Holy Confessors were dispersed, and remitted some Money to them to supply their present Extremities. It appears by the answers they made him, what Consolation and Joy this Letter gave them in the midst of their Sufferings. These Answers are the 77th, 78th, and 79th Letters, written from three several places, in which they return him their Thanks for his great Cha∣rity and Kindness in a simple unaffected Style, and assure him, that his Letter had raised their declin∣ing Spirits, healed their Wounds, and rendred their pressures more light, and supportable to them.

The 80th Letter, which is directed to the Confessors in Prison, was rather writ in his first Exile than in this, as we have observed after the Author of the English Edition. The 81st was writ at the beginning of the year 258, after the Death of Pope Xystus, and the return of St. Cyprian. It is ad∣dressed to one Successus, a Bishop, and in it he sends him word, That he was informed by some Let∣ters he had received from Rome, that Valerian had directed a Rescript to the Senate, by which he or∣dered all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to be put to Death without delay, and that the Senators, the Roman Knights, and all other Persons of Quality, who were Christians, should be deprived of their Offices and Estates; and that if they continued, after this Edict, to make Profession of the Christian Religion, they should be condemned to Die; That the Ladies should not only forscit all their Fortunes, but ••e Banished, and that those of Caesar's Houshold should be sent to Prison. He adds, that this Emperor had dispatched Letters to the Governors of Provinces, wherein he enjoyn'd them to Punish the Christians with all Rigour and Severity, who daily expected to see these Orders put in Execution against them; That Pope Xystus had suffered Martyrdom on the sixth day of August, and one Quartus along with him; That the Praefects of the City of Rome were very violent against the Christians, cau∣sing some of them to be executed every day, and that they confiscated the Goods of all those that were presented before them. In fine, he desires this Bishop to communicate the news to the rest of his Bre∣thren, that all Christians might prepare themselves the better for the Combat.

The last Letter of St. Cyprian is that which he writ a little before his Martyrdom, when he with-drew from his Gardens where he was ordered to Reside, because he received information, that the Pro-consul had sent some Soldiers to carry him away to the City of Utica, and he was not willing to suffer Martyrdom in a place distant from his own Church and People. But least this retirement should be interpreted to proceed from a fearful degenerous Spirit, he acquainted his Clergy and People with the reasons that moved him to preserve himself; and at the same time conjures them not to raise distur∣bances, but to preserve Peace and Unity, and that no body should be permitted to present himself of his own accord to the Gentiles, since it was sufficient to speak courageously when they were appre∣hended by them.

Besides these Letters of St. Cyprian, the time of whose writing we know, there are five others that respect some points of Discipline, and have no certain Date. The Author of the English Edition has placed four of them at the head of all the Letters, and affirms that they were written by St. Cyprian, before his first Banishment in the Year 246. The first, which is the Sixty Sixth in Pamelius's Order, is directed to the Clergy and People of Furni, and is writ against one Geminius Victor, who by his Will, had nominated a Priest called Geminius Faustinus to be Guardian to one of his Relations. He sends them word, That both himself and his Colleagues were extremely surprized when they were informed of it, because it had been prohibited long before by a Council of Bishops to name any Clergy-man in a Will to be a Guardian or Executor, since those that were honoured with the Priesthood, and undertaken the Office of Clerks, ought only to serve at the Altar, and the Holy Sacrifices, and should not take any other employment than that of Praying to the Lord. He shews them that for this very reason the Laity supplied them from time to time, with all things necessary for Life, as in the time of the Old Testament they paid Tithes to the Levites and Priests. He concludes, that since Victor had violated a Constitution made some time ago by a Council, they ought not to Pray for him after his Death, or suffer his Memory to be honoured in the Prayers of the Church.

The second, which is the Sixty first in Pamelius's Order, was writ upon the occasion of an Actor up∣on the Stage, who, after he had turned Christian, continued to follow his Profession. St. Cyprian tells Eucratius, who had consulted him to know whether he should let him stay in the Church, that it was below the Divine Majesty, the Evangelical Discipline, and the honour of the Church, to permit a Man that exercised so infamous a Profession to be in her Communion; That if the Law forbid Men to put on Female Habits, it certainly fo•• bad them much more to Personate the Gestures and Postures of Women, and to represent unseemly and lascivious Actions; That though this Actor had forborn to appear on the Stage himself, yet he was no less Criminal in teaching his scandalous Art to others; That if he pretended in his own excuse that he was Indigent, and had no other way left him to main∣tain himself, he should be relieved as the other Poor belonging to the Church were, provided he would be content with that little Subsistence the Church allowed him, and did not believe, that this was given him by way of recompence for sinning no more, since he alone reaped the benefit of it.

The third, which is the Sixty fifth in Pamelius's Order, was writ to Rogatianus, against one of his Deacons, who forgetting the respect he owed to his own Bishop, had treated him after an undutiful manner. St. Cyprian and his Brethren, to whom this Bishop had writ about the Matter, answered him that he might have punished him immediately for his Boldness, if he had been so pleased, and that his writing to him about it was only an Effect of his Humility. They enlarge upon the Respect and Obedience that is due to Bishops, affirming, that the Original of all Schisms and Heresies pro∣ceeded from the Contempt that was shewn to them. At last they advised this Bishop, in case his Dea∣con still continued to provoke him with new Injuries, to make use of his Episcopal Authority, and to Excommunicate him, together with the other who had joyned himself with him; hoping neverthe∣less that he would give him full Satisfaction, Because, say they, we had rather overcome the Evils we re∣ceive by Patience, than revenge our selves by the Sacerdotal Power.

The Fourth Letter, which is the Sixty second in Pamelius's Edition, was writ in the Name of a Council to Pomponius a Bishop, who had consulted St. Cyprian's Advice about some Virgins, who hav∣ing made a Resolution to keep their Virginity, had been too familiar with some Persons, and parti∣cularly with a Deacon. He commends this Bishop for depriving the Deacon, and the rest that had

lived with them, of the Communion. As for what concerned the Case of the Virgins, it was or∣dained, that those who had lost their Virginity should do publick Penance for their Crimes a conside∣rable time, as being Adulteresses in respect of Jesus Christ their Spouse, and that if they would not quit the Company of those Persons, with whom they had maintained this criminal Correspondence, they should be for ever turned out of the Church, without hopes of Pardon and Salvation, since it is impossible to be saved out of the bosom of the Church. And then as for those who had not lost their Virginity, he judged it expedient to admit them to the Communion of the Church, but with this warning, That if they still continued to live in the same House with those Persons, they should be punished after a more severe manner, and must no more expect to be pardoned so easily. Thus I have briefly run over these four Letters, which the Author of the Annals of St. Cyprian has placed at the head of his English Edition, and pretends to have been written before any of the rest; because St. Cyprian yz 1.458 makes no mention of any Persecution either present or past in them, as he does in almost all the rest. [The Reader ought to consult Mr. Dodwell's Learned Dissertation upon this Letter to ••omp••••ius, wherein he will see what gave occasion to those Virgins to live in so Scandalous a manner with the Deacons, fully explained.]

There remains nothing now but the 63 Letter, which the Author of the Annals in the English Edi∣tion, aa 1.459 affirms to have been written in the year 253, in the time of the Persecution under Gallus and Volusian. It is addressed to Caecilius and condemns the Error, or rather the Abuse of some Priests, who offered only Water in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He confronts this ill Custom, which was in∣troduced in some places, with the example and precept of Jesus Christ, and shews that we ought to offer in the Chalice nothing but Wine mingled with Water. He speaks of this after such a manner as may encline us to believe that it was absolutely necessary in his Opinion to mingle Water with the Wine, for he tells us, that as the Body of Jesus Christ could not be only of Meal unless it were tem∣pered with Water so likewise the Blood of Jesus Christ could not be of Wine alone, if it is not mingled with Water. But besides that, in the Explication of these Words we may understand them of the Body of Jesus Christ taken in a Mystical sense, we ought not to wonder that the Fathers speak often thus of Customs established in their own time when they are Ancient; such as this is, which came from the example of Jesus Christ, and the Tradition of the Apostles; we are not at all to wonder, I say, if they speak of them as of necessary things, without scrupulously examining whether they are of abso∣lute necessity, taking them in the rigorous sense. He observes in this Letter, that they used in his time to Celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Morning; and that Baptism was a necessary prepa∣ration for the Eucharist. He speaks of this Sacrament in such terms, as plainly shews, that he be∣lieved it really contained the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and yet he lays down several Mysti∣cal Reasons to explain why they made use of Bread, and Wine mingled with Water. He tells us, that Jesus Christ is figuratively represented by the Wine, and that the Water which is mingled with it sig∣nifies the Union of the People with Jesus Christ. Upon these grounds it is that he says, that if we offered pure Wine, the Body of Jesus Christ would be without us; and that if we offered only Water, we should be without Jesus Christ; And lastly, That as several grains of Corn ground and kneaded together make one Loaf, so after the same manner we are one and the same Body in Jesus Christ, who is that Coelestial Bread. [See here the power of Prejudice! The extract which M. Du Pin has given of this Letter, demonstrates that St. Cyprian understood the Institution of the Eucharist to be only My∣stical; Caecilius desired to know what St. Cyprian thought of a Custom newly taken up of using Water alone in the Morning when they administred the Lords Supper; It was in dangerous times, when by their Breaths the Christians might have been discovered, if they should have drank Wine so Early: This Innovation of theirs does not seem to have proceeded, from a wilful Contempt of the command of Christ, but from the Notions they had always been instructed in, concerning the Eucharist. They believed that the Lord's Supper was only a commemorative Sacrifice; and so they thought the Death of Jesus Christ could equally be remembred by Water in a Morning, as by Water and Wine together in an Afternoon. The Question then is, whether if St. Cyprian had believed that Jesus Christ was Cor∣poreally present in the Sacrament, he would have used such Mystical Arguments to persuade them to break off so unwarrantable a practice. He ought according to Roman Catholick Principles to have confuted their Error by a right Explication of the Nature of the Eucharist: He ought to have shewed them that it was not a Mystical but a Real Sacrifice, and that Jesus Christ is as literally offered up in that Sacrament as he was upon the Cross; and especially he ought to have told them, that Water could not have served instead of Wine, because upon Consecration it could not have been Transub∣stantiated into the Blood of Christ, and so by consequence it had been no true Sacrament for want of that real Presence, since Jesus Christ had never given his Ministers a Power to turn any thing besides Wine into his Blood, upon Pronouncing the words of the ••nstitution. Whereas here St. Cyprian owns the Eucharist to have been a Mystical Sacrifice, and gives this as a principal Reason why Water alone without Wine is ineffectual because there was a positive Institution from which the Church had no War∣rant to recede.

This is further confirmed by his secondary Arguments; In the first place, he says there must be Wine, Quia non potest videri Sanguis ejus, quo redemti & vivificari sumus, esse in Calice; quando Vinum desit Ca∣••ici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur: Because, says he, his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickn••d cannot seem to be in the Cup, if the Wine that represents the Blood of Christ be not in the Cup. If St. Cyprian had believed Transubstantiation he ought to have said, That the Blood of Christ is not in the Cup, unless Wine had been put into it. But he says, It cannot seem to be there, i. e. cannot be Typically represented by Water so well as by Wine. This is no force upon his Words; because he afterwards brings several Texts out of the Old Testament to prove that the Blood of Christ was represented by Wine, and not by Water, and that Baptism only was typified by Water by the Prophets. This Rea∣soning does not agree with modern Glosses; no Man ever searches for a mystical Reason when he can give a plain one. Wine after Consecration is not a Figure of Christ's Blood, but the Blood it self, according to the Church of Rome. And it is improper to say, that the Blood of Jesus Christ could not seem to be in the Cup if the Wine did not represent it, if the Wine were believed to be the real Blood; To be, and to be Represented are very different things. And though St. Cyprian calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice, yet since he describes it as a Commemorative one, by which we are Mystically united to Jesus Christ, by Faith in him, it is impossible to gather from thence, that he believed any other Pre∣sence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, then that which is taught by the Church of England]

Hitherto we have not been willing to interrupt the order of the Letters, by mingling them with his other Books, according to the Series of the time they were written in, because we could not possi∣bly have made an Abridgement of them without breaking the Continuation of the Letters, but nothing hinders us now from doing it: We shall carefully set down the years wherein they were composed, and this will be full as well for the Chronology of them, as if we had introduced them among the Letters.

It is probable that St. Cyprian's first Book, I mean after his address to Donatus, is, bb 1.460 That small Treatise, Intituled, The Vanity of Idols, wherein he refused the Pagan Religion which he had lately quitted. This Treatise may be divided into three Parts. In the first, he proves that the Deities of the Heathens are not true Gods; In the second, he shews that there is only one God; And lastly, in the Third, he shews that Jesus Christ is the word of God, who was sent to bring Salvation to Men. The two first parts are almost word for word taken out of Minutius Felix, and the last out of Ter∣tullian.

cc 1.461 The first Books of the Testimonies to Quirinus were also in all probability writ by St. Cyprian be∣fore he was Bishop, when he wholly employed himself in Reading and Studying the Holy Scriptures. These Books are a Collection of several Texts out of the Bible, and principally the Old Testament upon different Matters. In the first Book he cites those passages that prove, that the Jewish Law was to be only for a time; that it ought to be Abolished, and the Jews to be rejected; That Jesus Christ was to come to establish a New Temple, and New Sacrifices, a New Priesthood, and a New Church; That the Gentiles ought to believe in him, and through his means to obtain Remission of their Sins. In the second he urges those places that concern the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and particularly those that shew that Jesus Christ is the Wisdom and Word of God, who took our Na∣ture upon him, to redeem Mankind, with the Prophecies wherein it is foretold that he was to be born of the Race of David in the City of Bethlehem; That his first coming was to be without Glory; That the Jews were to Crucifie him; That he should rise the Third Day, and come at last to Judge the World. dd 1.462 The Third Book was Composed after these, upon a quite different Subject.

It is a Collection of several Testimonies, taken as well out of the Old as the New Testament, containing many Precepts of Morality, that either have a relation to Christian Virtues, such as are the Fear and Love of God, Patience under Sufferings, Martyrdom, and Virginity; or that dissuade from Vices, such as Anger, Evil Speaking, Pride, the superfluous Ornaments of Women, and the inordinate

love of Riches: Or Lastly, those that lay down the manner how Christians ought to behave them∣selves towards their Superiours; so that we may justly say of this Treatise, that it is a very useful Collection of all the Morality in the Holy Scriptures.

The Book of the Discipline, or the Conduct and Apparel of Virgins seems to be the first Work that St. Cyprian composed, ee 1.463 after he was ordained Bishop. The Design of it is to instruct the Virgins, with the care of whom he was intrusted, to preserve in their Habits, and the whole tenour of their Life a truly Christian Modesty. He begins with recommending Discipline, that is to say, a good conduct; as being the Guardian of Hope, the Anchor of Faith and the Guide to the way of Salva∣tion. He shews by several Texts of Scripture that it is of great necessity, and afterwards addressing himself to the Virgins, and extolling their Condition, he exhorts them to maintain this Discipline with the greatest exactness, as having more need of it than any Persons besides He convinces them, that Christian Continence can by no means suit with prophane Ornaments; that their Wealth did not ex∣cuse this vanity of Dressing; that God gave 'em Kiches not to throw away upon idle Superfluities, but to employ them to good uses, to feed and relieve the Poor; that a great Fortune, unless em∣ployed after this manner, does only become a great Temptation; that although these Ornaments that Virgins made use of, did not of themselves destroy them, yet they ought to abstain from them, since they had proved the ruine of others, by drawing the Eyes of young Men after them, and by that means kindling the fire of Love in their Hearts; that rich Attire and care in Dressing only became prostitutes, and that the Scripture always speaks of them after this manner; that they abused the works of God to set themselves out, and that they disfigured the Image he made by the Painting and Curling, and abundance of other Ornaments. After this he advises the Virgins, carefully to avoid all those things that might injure their Chastity, and severely reprehends those who were not ashamed to go to publick Baths, though they did it without entertaining the least ill design. In short, after having given these Instructions to the Virgins, he takes occasion to speak of the great advantages of Virginity, and tells them it was the nearest State to that of Martyrdom; that Virgins avoid the Curse pronounced against the first Woman; that they are equal to the Angels; that Virginity is not of absolute necessity, but that it is a great deal more excellent than any other Condition. At last he con∣cludes with desiring the Virgins to remember him when they should receive the Recompence of their Virginity. Tantum mementote time nostri, cum incipiet in vobis Virginitas honorari: Words which make it appear that in St. Cyprian's time they believed that the Saints interceded for us before God.

The Treatise concerning those that had fallen away in the time of Persecution, and that of the Unity of the Church were composed in the year 251, immediately after the Persecution of De∣cius. This last was writ upon the occasion of the Schism of the Novatians, and the Faction of Feli∣cissimus; and the first was writ against those of the Faction of Felicissimus that rashly granted the grace of Reconciliation to all that had fallen in the Persecution. He Read both these Books in an African Council held that very year, and afterwards sent them to Rome, as he testifies in his Fiftieth Letter, according to Pamelius's Order.

In his Treatise concerning those who had fallen away during the Persecution, he begins with giving Thanks to God that Peace was restored to the Church, and makes an honourable Elogium of the Holy Martyrs and Confessors. He deplores the lamentable fall of those Persons that had Apostatized, and observes that GOD never permits a Persecution but to punish the Corruptions and Vices of the Chri∣stians. He detests the crime of those who had presented themselves before the Magistrates to deny the Faith of Jesus Christ, and carried their Children to the Altars of the Gods to make them, if it were possible, partakers of their Crimes, and cause them to lose, as one may say, the Grace of Baptism. He observes that a Love for the World and an Inclination to Earthly Things occasioned the Fall of greatest part of those Persons who had Apostatized, and even hindered them from flying to avoid the Persecution: He affirms that the fault of those who were overcome by the extremity of their Tor∣ments was a great deal more excusable; but that those who had fallen away merely out of fear of Suffering, before they ever did suffer, could alledge nothing in their own defence. After he has shewn the greatness of the crime of these Apostates, he passes to the Remedies, and greatly blames those that admitted them to a rash and over hasty Reconciliation. He maintains that a Priest of GOD ought by no means to deceive Christians by a pernicious Complaisance, but to heal them with whole∣some Remedies, herein imitating a skilful Chirurgeon, who makes deep Incisions that so he may per∣fectly heal up the Wound, and never hearkens to the Complaints and Crys of his Patient, who will certainly thank him for it as soon as he is healed; that the liberty some Persons had assumed to them∣selves to grant Reconciliation unadvisedly to those that had fallen, was a new calamity that succeeded the Persecution; that this false Peace was pernicious, as well to those that gave it, as fatal to those

that received it; that a Sinner ought to have time sufficient to expiate his Sin by a true and lawful satisfaction; that it was abominable Sacriledge to approach the Holy of Holys, and to receive the body of Jesus Christ, while their hands were still polluted with sacrificing to Idols, and had scarce digested the meats offered to false Gods; that this in effect is to drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils, to eat at the Table of the Lord, and at that of the Devil, and to offer violence, as one may say, to the body and blood of Jesus Christ; that they deceive themselves who think that the Reconciliation which is given them before they have expiated their Crime by a publick Penance, and purified their Conscience by Sacrifice and Imposition of Hands from the Bishop, is a true Reconciliation; that is rather a War, a new Persecution, a new Temptation, where∣of the Enemy makes use to consummate the destruction of those that fell, by taking away from them the Spirit of Repentance; that they ought not to flatter themselves because they were absolved by the Martyrs, since Jesus Christ only can pardon Sins; that the Merits and Works of the Martyrs can in∣deed do much, but that only for the day of Judgment, and that it is downright rashness to believe that they can without distinction grant Remission of Sins to all the World, against the express com∣mand of Jesus Christ; that if what the Martyrs ordain is just and lawful, it ought to be granted at their request; but if what they demand is against the Law of GOD, and the Gospel, it is not rea∣sonable that it should be granted; besides, that it is not to be presumed that those who are Martyrs for the Gospel, would attempt any thing in derogation to it. After this to strike terrour into those who had fallen he relates several Examples of Persons, whom God had severely punished for being so bold as to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after their Apostacy. Then he addresses himself to those who had taken Certificates from the Magistrates, which testified that they had sa∣crificed, thô they had really done no such thing, and advises them not to flatter themselves, as if there was no necessity of repenting, since to confess that one has committed a crime, is effectually the same thing as to commit it, and that this Declaration was a solemn renouncing of the Christian Religion; that thô this crime did not appear very shamefull in the Eyes of Men, yet it was heinous before God, who knows the most secret motions and inclinations of our hearts. At last he mightily extolls the Piety of those who had neither offered Sacrifice, nor taken Certificates; However, since they had a desire to do it, he exhorts them to confess themselves largely and with sorrow before the Priests of GOD, discovering the Secrets of their Conscience, to quiet their Consciences, and to search out a re∣medy for their Wounds, thô they appeared to be slight and insignificant; and he persuades those that were conscious to themselves of this fault, not to be ashamed of discovering it, and to do Penance for it that so they may obtain Pardon. He concludes all with an exhortation to Sinners, to renounce the Pleasures and Vanities of the World, and to satisfie the Divine Justice by a long and sincere Re∣pentance.

ff 1.464 In his Treaty of The Unity of the Church he begins with advising all Christians to joyn Prudence to plicity, and to take diligent care to keep themselves from the secret Attacks of the Devil, as Here∣sies and Schisms, whereby he draws Christians, before they are aware, to separate themselves from the Unity of the Church. After this, he demonstrates, by several Reasons, That the Church of Je∣sus Christ is essentially One, and that there cannot be more. He tells us, That for a visible mark of this Unity, Jesus Christ had built his Church upon St. Peter; and that he gave the Power of his Keys only to him, tho', after his Resurrection, he gave equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles; that as the Church is One, so there is One only Episcopacy, a part whereof every Pastor truly and really possesses; that such as are out of this Church, have no Salvation to hope for; that a Man may be killed indeed out of the Church, but that he could not be crown'd unless he were actually in the Church; that Schism and Heresie are the most enormous Crimes a Man can be guilty of, which God has always punished with the greatest Severity; that the example of a few Confessors ought not to stagger or scandalize any one; for besides that, we are not to imitate them in the faults they may commit; there was still a very great number of them that continued stedfast in the Unity of the Church. At last, he exhorts all Christians whatsoever, to return to it again, to promote Union by their joynt endea∣vours, and to have no manner of Commerce with Schismaticks.

[In the Account which our Author gives of this Discourse of St. Cyprian, he seems not to be so fair as he is at other times. He says from St. Cyprian, That for a visible mark of this Unity of the Church, Jesus Christ had built his Church upon St. Peter, and gave the Power of the Keys only to him; tho', after his Resurrection he gave equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles. St. Cyprian's words are these, Lo∣quitur Dominus ad Petrum, ego tibi dico, inquit, quia tu es Petrus, & super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae inferorum non vincent eam, &c. & iterum eidem post Resurrectionem suam dicit, Pasce oves meas. Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam. Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus, parem potestatem tribuat, & dicat, si cui remiseritis peccata, remittentur illi: Si cui tenueritis, tenebuntur: tamen ut uni∣tatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem, ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & Potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia una monstretur.

The Lord said unto Peter, I say unto thee, says he, that thou art Peter, and upon that Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, &c. and again, after his Resurrection, he says to the same St. Peter, Feed my Sheep. He builds his Church upon one. And thô he gives equal Power to all the Apostles, and tells them, whose Sins

ye retain, they shall be retained, and whose Sins ye forgive shall be forgiven; yet that he might make that Unity manifest, he ordered by his own Authority, that the Original of that very Unity should begin from one. For the other Apostles were the same as he, equally Partners of Honour and Power, but the beginning springs from Unity, that the Church may be shew'd to be but one.

Here is no distinction made of different Powers granted before and after the Resurrection. St. Cy∣prian seems to have designed to obviate this Objection; and lest any Man should think, that any Pri∣macy, except that of being named first was intended, he says, that the other Apostles were St. Peter's equals, both in Honour and Power. But this Passage has had foul dealing shew'd to it long ago; Manutius published it at Rome with Interpolations in his Edition in 1563. Rigaltius was ashamed of it, and so Printed it in his Notes faithfully. The wonder is, how Mr. Du Pin should say, That Jesus Christ gave the Power of the Keys to St. Peter only, when he had the Oxon Edition before him, and all the other Editions that preceded Manutius's, of which he has given us a Catalogue. One sees the the Reason now, why he desires afterwards that some Catholick Divine (as he calls them) would Reprint St. Cyprian, and Illustrate him with Catholick Commentaries. This is the Reason why the Oxon Edition could not satisfie him: Bishop Fell's Notes are too candid and sincere for any one of that Communion; so that thô he could not omit speaking honourably of it, lest his judgment should have been questioned, yet the want of Catholick Commentaries was so very deplorable a thing, that he thought by this fly insinuation to depreciate so valuable an Edition of so great a Father: For St. Cyprian alone cannot be put into all Mens hands without danger; and it is an unanswerable Argument how little Antiquity favours their Cause, when the Father who wrote more and more earnestly for Catholick Unity, and the support of Ecclesiastical Discipline against Schismaticks, and Disturbers of the Peace of the Church, than any Man before the Council of Nice, cannot be brought to speak as they would have him, without using the most palpable misrepresentation, and the most unjust dealing that can be shewn to the Writings of any Author whatever.]

The Treatise about the Lord's Prayer immediately follows that of the Unity of the Church, in Pon∣tius the Deacon's Catalogue, and it is probable, that it was composed soon after, towards the be∣ginning of the Year 252. In this Book he highly recommends Amity and Concord, which shews, that he writ it soon after the former, when he had his Head full of the same thoughts, and at a jun∣cture when it was necessary to inforce them the second time on the World. We may divide it into seven Parts: In the first, he demonstrates, that the Lord's Prayer is the most excellent and efficacious Prayer, since Jesus Christ himself composed it for our use. In the second, he sets down Rules how we ought to Pray, and tells us we must do it with a World of Reverence and Modesty; that the tone of our voice ought not to be high; that when Christians assemble together to celebrate Divine Sacrifices with the Bishop, it is convenient that they should remember to be moderate, and not to make a confused noise with their Voice, because it is not the Voice, but the Heart which is to be ele∣vated to Heaven; that we must pray with great Humility, which he confirms by the example of Hannah; the Mother of Samuel, and of the Publican mentioned in the Gospel. In the third part, he instructs us what things we are to Pray for; and taking occasion to explain the Lord's Prayer, he observes in the first place, that we do not say, My Father, but Our Father, because the Prayer of e∣very Christian is a common Prayer, who does not pray for himself alone, but for the whole Congrega∣tion of the Faithful, which make up but one body; that we invoke God by the name of Father, because we are made his Children by Baptism; that we beseech him that his name may be sanctified in us, that is to say, we pray him to sanctifie and purifie us continually to the end of our Life; that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which we expect, is the recompence we hope to receive in the other Life, at the day of Judgment; that when we pray to God that his Will may be done, our meaning is not, that he would do whatever pleases him, but that he would work in us what he would have us to do, that is to say, that he would make us accomplish his Will, which no body is able to do by his own strength alone, without the assistance of God's Mercy; that this Will of God, which we are required to fulfil, is no other than what Jesus Christ has done and taught, that is to say, Humility, Stedfast∣ness in the Faith. Prudence, Justice, Mercy, a good Deportment, to do wrong to none, to preserve Peace with our Brethren, to love God with all our Heart, and to prefer nothing before Jesus Christ, since he himself preferred nothing before us; that when we pray that this Will may be done in Earth as it is in Heaven, we mean (according to his Explication) in our Body, and in our Mind, or rather in the Unbelievers as well as the Believers. After this he says, that the daily Bread we pray for in the Lord's Pr••yer, may be understood either of Spiritual or Corporeal Bread; that the Spiritual Bread we beg for is the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, which the Christians who are truly devoted to Jesus Christ desire to receive, daily fearing to be separated from it by some great Sin; that if we understood it of Corporeal Bread, the meaning is, that we are not to beg of God what is necessary for our Sustenance every day, unless we carry our desires farther: That in praying to God that he would Forgive us our Trepasses, we acknowledge that we Trespass continually, and impose upon our selves at the same time a Law not to obtain remission, but only upon condition, that we forgive our Brethren the Trespasses they have committed against us: When we desire of God that he would not permit us to fall into Temptation, we intimate, that our Enemy has no Power over us, if God does not give him leave to tempt us, and that he never gives him leave but for two Reasons, either to punish us for our Sins, or else to try us: That the Lord's Prayer concludes at last with a Petition, which is a sort of of an Abridgment of all the rest; for when we beseech God to deliver us from all Evil by his Almighty Power, nothing more remains for us to ask.

In the fourth part he tells us, that Jesus Christ has instructed us to pray as well by his Example as by his Words; and since he who was without Sin pray'd often, certainly we who are Sinners are to pray continually. In the fifth, he recommends vigilancy and attention in our Devotions, exhorting us to think upon nothing but only him to whom we address our selves, and to banish all carnal Thoughts out of our Hearts. To impress the greater Authority upon this Exhortation, he takes notice of the Prayer which the Priest repeated at that time, when he celebrated the Eucharist, saying, Sursum cor∣da, Lift up your Hearts, and observes, that the People answer'd, We lift them up to the Lord.

In the sixth part, he advises all Christians not to content themselves with vain barren Prayers, but to joyn Alms giving, and other Actions of Piety to them. And lastly, in the seventh part, he dis∣courses of the time of Prayer, after he has taken notice, what are the most solemn hours to Pray in. He concludes with affirming, that Christians ought to Pray to God at all times; and since the serious performance of these duties will procure for them one day, everlasting Happiness, they ought, even now, to begin to thank God. This Treatise of St. Cyprian was so highly approved by St. Austin, that he recommended it to the Monks of Adrumetum, to whom he addressed his Book about Grace and Free-will, to read it over carefully, and to learn it by Heart; and he observes, that this Saint speaks after such a manner in this Treatise, as shews, that he was perswaded we ought to pray to God to give us his Grace to perform what he commands us to do in his Law. And indeed, amongst all the Treatises that were composed in the first Ages of the Church, perhaps there is not one that ascribes so much to the Grace of Jesus Christ as this does, or contains more formal Passages to prove the efficacy and necessity of it.

The Exhortation to Martyrdom, directed to Fortunatianus, at a time when the Christians expected the Persecution of Gallus and Volusian, was writ in the Year 253. 'Tis a Collection of Texts of Scripture, to excite all Christians to confess the Name of Jesus Christ Courageously, and to suffer Martyrdom for the Truth. In the first Chapter he cites those places, that discover the vanity of Idols. In the second, those that shew, that we must only Worship God. In the third, those that mention the severe Punishments wherewith God threatens to visit those that Sacrifice to Idols. In the fourth and fifth, those that declare, that God will not easily pardon Idolatry, but punishes those with Death who counsel others to adore Idols. In the sixth, he urges those Texts that may induce us to consider, that since we have been redeemed and enlivened by Jesus Christ, we ought not to pre∣fer any thing before him, since he himself prefer'd nothing before us. In the seventh, those that re∣present to us, that since we have once escaped the Snares of the Devil, and the Ambushes of the World, we ought to take heed that we fall into them no more, but make the best use of that deli∣very. In the eighth, those that recommend Perseverance in the Faith, and all other Virtues. In the ninth, those that shew, that Persecutions and Afflictions are sent only to try us. In the tenth, those that give us Consolation, and teach us not to be afraid, since God is more powerful to Protect us, than the Devil to Overcome us. In the eleventh, those that prove, that it was foretold, that the World would hate us, and stir up Persecutions against us; and that good Men always suffered. In the last, there is a Collection of Texts to encourage Christians to suffer Martyrdom, out of hopes of finding a sufficient recompence in Heaven. Here is an Abridgment of this Treatise made by St. Cy∣prian himself, which he sent at the end of his Letter to Fortunatianus, to whom he Dedicates this Book. He observes in this Letter, that it is the duty of the Bishop to train and exercise those Sol∣diers, whom Jesus Christ has committed to his Charge; and that Observations drawn out of the Holy Scripture, are the best Arms he can give them.

The Treatise of Mortality was composed gg 1.465 upon occasion of a certain Pestilence that afflicted the Roman Empire, but principally Africk the Year after the Death of Gallus and Volusian. He shews in his Treatise, that Christians ought not to be afraid of Sickness or Calamities, but that they rather ought to wish for them, since they furnish them with an opportunity to exercise their Patience, and to merit the Rewards of Heaven; that they ought not to fear Death, but rather to desire it, since it delivers them from all the miseries of this Life, and unites them to Jesus Christ for ever; that we ought not to be surprized, that the Pestilence seizes Christians as well as Pagans, since all the miseries of the Flesh are equally common to both, nay, that a Christian ought to suffer more than the other; that the difference that ought to be between him, and one that does not know God, is, that the latter complains and suffers his Evils with impatience, whereas a Christian shews his Faith at such a juncture, by being not afraid of Death, and his Vertue in bearing every thing patiently, and his Charity in helping his Neighbour; that thought the Good dye as well as the Bad, yet their end is very different, because the Good after their Death, are sent into a place of Refreshment, whereas the Wicked are thrown headlong into a place where they are Tormented for ever; that the first dye to be put into a better state of security, and the last to be more severely punished: That Sicknesses prepare us for Martyrdom, and make us Martyrs of Jesus Christ; that for this reason we ought not to be afflicted, because they deprive us of the glory of Confession, since not to mention, that it does not depend upon our selves to be Martyrs, and that it is the Grace of God to let us dye with a Will of suffering Martyrdom, God will crown us as if we had really suffered it: That it would be to no

purpose to beg of God, that his Kingdom may come, if the Captivity wherein we are does still please us: That we ought not to bewail those of our Brethren, whom God has taken to himself, since we have not lost them, and they have only gone a Journey before us, which we are all to make one time or another: That we do in some sort distrust the promises of Jesus Christ, if we concern and afflict our selves at the Death of our Neighbours and Friends, as if they were no more, and that we ought rather to rejoyce that they are passed into a better Life, and enjoy a state of repose and tranquillity that will never end: At last he exhorts all Christians heartily to wish for the happy day of their Death, which will free them from the exile of this Life, and give them admission into the Kingdom of Hea∣ven, which is their Country, where they will be everlastingly in the Company of the Saints, and with Jesus Christ.

His Treatise to Demetrianus hh 1.466 a Judge in Africa, was likewise composed during the rage of this Pestilence, immediately after ii 1.467 the Death of Gallus and Volusian. He there refutes a Calumny, which the Pagans frequently formed against the Christians for being the cause of those Wars, Fa∣mines, Plagues, and other Calamities that wasted the Roman Empire. He shews, that those misfor∣tunes that daily happen in the World, which grows old every day, ought to be rather attributed to the Crimes and Impiety of Men; and that the Christians were so far from being the occasion of them, because they did not adore false Gods, that the Pagans rather drew down all these heavy Visitations upon Mankind, because they did not Worship the true God, and Persecuted those that Worship'd him: That all this was the immediate hand of God, who to revenge himself for the contempt they shew'd of him, and of those that served him, punished Men after this rigorous manner, and made them feel the weight of his displeasure: That the Gods of the Pagans were so far from being able to exercise this Revenge, that they were fettered and ill used, as I may say, by the Christians, who ejected them by force out of the Bodies of those Persons, whom they had possest: That the Christians suffered patiently, as being assured that their Cause would be soon revenged, that they endured the same Evils which the Pagans did in this World, but that they comforted themselves, because after their Death they should possess everlasting Joy, whereas the Pagans at the day of Judgment would be condemned to everlasting Torments. He exhorts them at last, with great zeal and ardour, to quit their Errors, and to repent of them while they are in a condition to do it; because after this Life is once over, there is no room for Repentance, and afterwards the Satisfaction is useless, since it is here upon Earth, that every Man renders himself worthy or unworthy of everlasting Salvation: That neither Age nor Sins ought to hinder any one from suffering himself to be Converted, since, as long as we are in this World, there is still time for us to Repent, the Gate of the Divine Mercy being ne∣ver shut to those that diligently search the Truth. Though you were, says he, at the point of Death, if you pray'd to have your Sins forgiven, and implored the goodness of God, you would obtain remission of your Crimes, and pass from Death to Immortality. Jesus Christ has procured this favour for us by conquering and triumphing over Death on the Cross, by redeeming those that Believe with the price of his Blood, by recon∣ciling Man to God, and communicating a new Life to him by a celestial Birth. Let us follow them all if it is possible, and receive this Sacrament, and his Sign, &c.

It is probable, that the kk 1.468 Treatise of Mercy and Alms-giving was writ when St. Cyprian gathered considerable Alms to redeem the Christians, who had been taken Prisoners by the Barbarians, to∣wards the Year 253. He demonstrates in this Book, by several Authorities of Scripture, and many Convincing Reasons, the necessity of giving Alms; he refutes the frivolous excuses, and vain preten∣ces used by Rich Men to avoid the doing such acts of Charity; and observes, that in his time every one brought a Loaf at the Celebration of the Eucharist, [which was always once a day, in the Morn∣ing before it was Light, and often at Night after Supper.]

St. Cyprian tells us himself, in his Letter to Jubaianus, that he composed his Book of Patience, upon the occasion of a Question concerning the reiteration of the Baptism of Hereticks, to shew that we ought to preserve Charity and Patience in all Disputes with our Brethren. So this Treatise was com∣posed, at the beginning of the Year 256, and St. Cyprian ll 1.469 sent it as soon as it was finished to one Jubaianus a Bishop, together with the Letter which he writ to him. In it he exhorts Christians to Patience, by the Example of Jesus Christ, and the Saints as well of the Old as the New Testament.

mm 1.470 The Book of Envy was writ a little after that of Patience. In it he disswades Christians from that Vice, which is the occasion of all Mischief, and exhorts them to the practice of Charity and Christian Humility.

Hitherto we have only mentioned those Works that unquestionably belong to St. Cyprian, I shall now speak a few words of those that are falsly attributed to him, which are put by themselves in Rigaltius's and the English Edition. There is a great number of these Books, some of which are really useful and ancient, though we don't know their Authors, some carry the Names of their Authors at present, and some are of a later date, and deservedly despised.

In the number of the first, we must place the following Treatises. That against publick Shews, the Books of Charity, and the Homily against Novatian, all which works seem to proceed from one Author; and nn 1.471 might be attributed to St. Cyprian, if it were not for the difference that is so visible between the Style of this Father, and that of these three Books.

The Treatise or oo 1.472 Homily against Gamesters, is yet more different from St. Cyprian's Style than any of the former, being an intricate confused Book, and abounding with barbarous words. The Scriptures are cited there after another manner than they are in St. Cyprian; and the Author mentions a Book, In∣tituled, The Doctrine or Doctrines of the Apostles, which, in all probability, was composed since St. Cy∣prian's time.

The Book of the Coelibacy of the Clergy is extremely useful: In it he proves, that Churchmen ought not to live with Women; some have attributed it to St. Cyprian upon the Faith of some MSS. others to St. Austin, others to St. Jerom, and lastly, others to Gaudentius Brixienfis. However, it is certain, that it was never writ by St. Cyprian, as the difference of Style, and pp 1.473 the barbarous words, sufficiently witness. Nor is it a Translation out of Origen, but the work of some Latin Author: In short, it is nei∣ther qq 1.474 written in the Style of St. Jerom, nor Origen.

The Author of the English Edition supposes that this Treatise was writ in the time of Venerable Bede, when the famous Question of the Coelibacy of Churchmen was so warmly discussed in the West: But this is only a bare conjecture, supported by no solid reason; so that we can say nothing positive con∣cerning the Author of this Work.

The Book of the Twelve Abuses of the Age, which is likewise attributed to St. Austin, was neither written by that Father, nor by St. Cyprian; for, besides that, it has not the least resemblance of their Style or manner of Writing, the Scripture is always cited there, after St. Jerom's Version. Pamelius has ascribed it to one Erardus, whose Name he found in the Margin of this Treatise in a MSS. of St. Austin. Others again bestow'd it upon St. Patrick Bishop of Ireland, and some upon St. John Climacus.

To these Treatises we must joyn an Oration in praise of Martyrdom, and another about double Martyr∣dom, both which were composed by some Author who is not very ancient for his Diversion. The first is penn'd in an elaborate affected Style; and it seems probable, that the Person that made it, only tried how he could make an Harangue in form. He begins with an Exordium, as if he delivered it before an Assembly; the Periods are carefully wrought, his Thoughts are odd and uncommon, and the whole Turn is extremely Stiff. The Oration about double Martyrdom is writ after a more negligent way by some young Author, who had a mind to imitate St. Cyprian's Style. Gravius imagined that Erasmus was the Author of this Cheat; but in all probability, so able a Man as he was, would have carried on the Imposture better than it is managed in this Book: For though the Author pretends that he writ it 240 Years after Jesus Christ; yet he makes no scruple of telling us, that the Christian Religion was farther extended than the Empire. He speaks of the Persecution under Dioclesian, and Maximin or Maximian, of a War against the Turks, and makes mention of Monks and their Practices: And these are the Books falsly attributed to St. Cyprian, which may be of some use, whose Authors are not known.

The Treatise of the Cardinal, or principal Works of Jesus Christ, which was attributed to St. Cyprian, though it does not resemble his Style, has been restored upon the Faith of several Manuscripts, to Ar∣noldus Bonaevallis, a Friend of St. Bernard's, who addressed it to Pope Adrian IV. and who composed some other Treatises besides this, in the very same Style, viz. one concerning the Sayings of Jesus Christ, another upon the Cross, the Work of the Six Days, and the Praises of the Virgin, all which are Printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum; and lastly, a Treatise of Meditations, which was never Printed before, but has been added in the English Edition of St. Cyprian, to all the other Works of the same Author.

The Explication of the Apostles Creed belongs undoubtedly to Ruffinus. The Treatise of the Bap∣tism of Hereticks, Published by Rigaltius, but directly contrary to St. Cyprian's Opinion in the matter, was writ by an ancient Writer who lived before St. Austin's time, and perhaps was a Contemporary of St. Cyprian.

The other Treatises attributed to St. Cyprian are not only spurious, but are full of nothing else but Impertinencies and Errors. The first is a Treatise of the Mountains of Sion and Sina, writ by some body who was wholly besotted with the dreaming Enthusiasms of the Rabbines and Cabalists. The Supper is a ridiculous impertinent Book▪ The Revelation of John Baptist's Head is a fabulous Story,

writ after the time of St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Vandals, the Chronicle of Marcellinus and Pipin, whom it mentions. His Preface attributed to Celsus, upon the dispute of Papiscus and Jason ad∣dressed to Vigilius, and the Treatise against the Jews, are two Books, wherein there is nothing regu∣lar or solid. The two Trearises directed to the Martyrs, and the Confession or Repentance of St. Cyprian the Martyr, are Books which the Modern Greeks have attributed to the Martyr Cyprian, who perhaps is the Bishop of Carthage, whose Life they have amplified.

The Secrets and Prayers of St. Cyprian, are Treatises full of Superstition and Impiety. There re∣mains nothing behind but rr 1.475 a Calendar upon Easter, Printed under St. Cyprian's Name in the English Edition. 'Tis the Work of an ancient Author, but the Style is wholly different from that of St. Cyprian. I say nothing of the Poems that are attributed to him, because they go likewise under Tertullian's Name, and I spoke of them when I gave an Account of that Author. [A Man must have a very nice taste of Styles, that can throw away a Book that is almost all Calculation, from any Author to whom it is attributed, if he has no other Reason to reject it.]

St. Cyprian is the first of the Christian Authors, that was truly Eloquent, as Lactantius has observed; and we may say, that there has been never another since him, * 1.476 if we except Lactantius, who was Ma∣ster of so much true, and noble, and genuine Eloquence. He professed Rhetorick with mighty Repu∣tation, before he was Converted to Christianity; and what he writ afterwards is admirable in its kind. For as Lactantius adds,

He had an easie, fertile, agreeable Invention; and what is more, a Spirit of Perspicuity reigns throughout all his Works, which is one of the best Qualities belonging to any Dis∣course. He has a great deal of Ornament in his Narration, an easie Turn in his Expressions, and Force and Vigour in his Reasonings, in such a manner that he had all the three Talents required in an Ora∣tor, which are to please, to teach, and to perswade; and it is not easie to say which of these three he possesses in the most eminent degree.

As St. Jerome said, that his Discourse resembled a Fountain of pure Water, having a sweet and gentle Stream, so we may say, that it does likewise very often re∣semble an impetuous Torrent, that carries away with it every thing it meets, since he was capable of raising what Passions he pleased, and of perswading us to do whatever he had a mind to. Whether he gives Consolation, or whether he exhorts or disswades, he does it with so much force, that one cannot possibly avoid being sensibly comforted or encouraged, or deterred by what he says. His Eloquence is natural, and far removed from the Style of a Declamer. There is no insipid mean Railery, no common Proverbs; in short, nothing that has the tincture of ordinary Literature in his Writings, but the Christian and the Bishop speak all along: A Man may see that his Tongue spoke out of the abun∣dance of his Heart, and that as he had searched into the deepest Christian Truths, so he expressed them nobly and generously: Though we must at the same time own, that after all his endeavours to speak as distinctly and purely as was possible, there is something of the African Genius in him; and he could not forbear now and then to intermix ss 1.477 some harsh terms. So difficult a matter it is to vanquish Nature, or to abstain from those words we daily hear from those with whom we converse.

His studying and reading of Tertullian, whom he looked upon to be his Master, might in some mea∣sure contribute to corrupt his Style: But then on the other hand we must acknowledge, that it fur∣nished him with some Advantages, and that he has borrowed several Thoughts out of him, which he sets off and beautifies, though he was Religiously careful to avoid all his Faults and Errors. For, at the bottom, the Characters of these two Authors are exceeding different. Tertullian is harsh and ob∣scure; St. Cyprian is polite and clear; Tertullian is hot and fiery; St. Cyprian, though he does not want all necessary force upon occasion that requires it, is soft and gentle: Tertullian reproaches his Adversa∣ries, and insults over them in a bitter railing manner; St. Cyprian is infinitely more moderate, and if he is obliged at any time to speak some Truths that displease them, he takes care to soften them by the agree bleness of his Narration: Tertullian vents abundance of false Reasons, and teaches several Er∣rors; on the contrary, St. Cyprian argues almost every-where with a World of Justice and Solidity, and is exempt, I mean, not only from gross Errors, but even from those of small consequence, commonly found in the Fathers of the Three first Conturies: He says nothing concerning the Mysteries of the Tri∣nity, or the Incarnation, that carries any difficulty with it, or stands in need of an explication. He rejects the Error of the Millenaries, and that of the State of the Soul before the Day of Judgment. He is the first that spoke clearly of Original Sin, and the Necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ. He plainly distinguishes between Baptism and Imposition of Hands, as two different Sacraments. He speaks of the Eucharist as of a Sacrament, wherein the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is received, and which requires great Purity and great Preparation to be worthily received. He establishes the matter of this Sacrament, but he urges the necessity of mingling Water with the Wine, with too much heat. He is the fir•••• that talked largely of Penance, and of the Power of the Priesthood to bind and unbind. He zealously demonstrates how necessary it is towards Salvation, to be within the Church: He discourses

very advantageously of the Bishop of Rome, and looks upon the Bishop of that See to be the Super∣intendent of the first Church in the World. But then he was of Opinion, that he ought not to assume any Authority over the rest of the Bishops that were his Brethren, or over their Churches: That every Bishop was to render to God an account of his own Conduct: That the Episcopal Authority is indivisible, and that every Bishop has his Portion of it. That in case of neoessity, all Bishops may assist their Brethren with their Counsels, though they are not under their ordinary Jurisdiction: That Causes ought to be determi∣ned in the respective Provinces, where the Accusers and Witnesses are to be found: That Councils or Assemblies of Bishops are extremely useful: That the Keys were given to the whole Church in gene∣ral, in the Person of St. Peter, to denote Unity. It may be proved out of his Writings, That they used to Offer Sacrifice for the Dead in his time; That they were perswaded that the Saints interceded for us, and that Sacrifices were Offered in Honour of their Memory. That they made use of Holy Water, that they had Virgins who made Profession of Virginity; and that this condition was mightily honoured amongst the Christians. I take no notice of abundance of other points of Discipline and Morality, which may be observed in the Abridgment we have made of his Works, where the Reader, as he peruses them, may collect them for himself; and indeed, they are of great importance to all People.

The first Edition of St. Cyprian, which appear'd a little after the Invention of Printing, neither bears the name of the Printer, nor of the City where it was Printed. It is more Correct, and freer from Faults than the following ones.

The second Edition is that of Spire, by Wendelinus, in the Year 1471, in Folio. It is mighty full of Errors.

In the Year 1512, Remboldus caused this Author to be Printed at Paris, and was the first that divi∣ded the Letters into several Books. Afterwards Erasmus having review'd and Corrected it, Printed it with a Preface and some Annotations, in the beginning in 1520, and 1525, for Frobenius. It was likewise Printed the very same Year at Colen. Afterwards at Paris, for Langelier, in 1541. At Ant∣werp, in Octavo, in the Year 1542. by Crinitus, and for Frobenius, in 1549. At Lyons for Gryphius, in Octavo, in 1544, and 1550. At Basil, according to Erasmus's Edition, in Folio, for John Hervagius, in 1558. Gravius caused it to be Printed with some Notes at Colen; and it was also Printed at Lyons, in 1535. 1543, 1549, and 1556, in Octavo. At Venice in the same Volume, in 1547. After these Editions, which are none of the most Correct, Manutius caused it to be Printed at Rome, Corrected by several Manuscripts in 1563, in Folio, in a very neat Character, and augmented with a fifth Book of Letters. Morellus's Edition at Paris in the Year following, is larger and more accurately done. It was Printed too at Geneva, in the Year 1593. with the Notes of Goulartius and Pamelius.

Pamelius, after he had taken pains with Tertullian, set himself to Publish a more exact Edition of St. Cyprian's Works. He is the first that disposed the Letters according to the Series of Time, distri∣buting them, as we have done into five Classes: but he has not been very exact in distributing those of the same Class in their natural Order. He likewise writ St. Cyprian's Life, and has made large Observations upon this Author; wherein he applys himself more to confirm the Doctrine and Disci∣pline of our Times, than to explain the difficulties of his Author.

Pamelius's St. Cyprian has been Printed twice at Antwerp, in 1568, and 1589. And at Paris in 1607, 1574, 1616, 1632, and 1644. These Editions are compared with several ancient Manu∣scripts, and the former Editions. In imitation of him, Rigaltius, after he had Published Tertuillian, undertook St. Cyprian, and without making the least alteration in the Order observed by Pamelius, he only Corrected the Works of this Author, upon the different Readings of two Italian Manuscripts, which Monsieur de Monchal, Archbishop of Tholouse, had Copied in the Margin of his St. Cyprian, and made some Notes to explain the most difficult places; and some Observations to enlighten the Disci∣pline that was in vigour in this Saint's Time. Some of these Observations seem to be bold, and he endeavours to excuse himself for them in his Preface. This Edition was Printed at Paris for Dupuis, in 1648.

In the Year 1666, Dupuis Reprinted the Works of this Saint, as he did those of Tertullian, that: is to say, he added to the Trxt, which is conformable to the Edition of Rigaltius, the entire Notes and Observations of that Learned Man; together with some choice. Observations of Pamelius, and joyn'd to this Author Minutius Felix, Arnobius, Firmicus, and the Instruction of Commodianus. In the Year 1681. Frederic Reinard, a Minister in Germany, put out St. Cyprian's Letters at Altdorf. There is no∣thing particular in this Edition, but the great number of Manuscripts with which it was compared.

Monsieur Lombert having Translated the Works of St. Cyprian into French, and follow'd. Pamelius's Method in his Translation, has reformed some part of this Method in his Preface, and has given us by the assistance of several judicious Men, a more accurate order of the Letters and Treatises of St. Cyprian, than that of Pamelius. [He is quoted with great respect by the Bishops of Oxford and Chester, in the Oxford Edition of this Father's Works.]

After all, two English Bishops, not long since, put out a new Edition of St. Cyprian, which is more correct, and exact, and larger than all the former. The Text is here Printed in a very fine Chara∣cter, Revised upon four new Manuscripts, and several different Readings, Copied out of other Ma∣nuscripts by very able Men. The Margin is all along charged with a very short and clear Summary of all that is contained in the Text. Just under the Text, the different reading of the Manuscripts and Editions are set down. At the bottom of the Page are placed the Notes, some of which are borrowed from Rigaltius and Pamelius, and the rest which are new are made by the Bishop of Ox∣ford. Most of them are Theological. His Tracts precede the Letters in this Edition, and are dispo∣sed according to the Order wherein they are supposed to have been written. The Letters likewise are distributed after a new Method, but very exact. The Books that are falsly attributed to St. Cy∣prian, are Printed at the end in a smaller Character, with the Works of Arnoldus Bonaevallis that carry his name with a Book of Meditations never Printed before. The Calendar of Easter is at the end of

the Volume. At the head of all, there is an Advertisement to the Reader, containing the general design of this Edition; St. Cyprian's Life, by P•…•…tius his Deacon; some Testimonies of the Ancients concerning St. Cyprian; a Table as well of the Books according to the different Editions, as of the Texts of Scripture cited in the Works of St. Cyprian, and the matter of them. This is followed with a Book written by Dr. Pearson, Bishop of Chester, Intituled, The Annals of St. Cyprian, because it contains the History of the Life and Works of this Saint from Year to Year. [After all, there are some Dissertations of Mr. Dodwell's upon difficult places, wherein he not only explains his Author, but makes large digressions to clear some of the most considerable Questions in all Ecclesiastical Antiquity: and to illustrate those matters of Fact, and points of Discipline which are only alluded to in St. Cy∣prian, as things at that time perfectly known.]

I have been lately Informed, That a Doctor of the Faculty in Paris, a Man of prodigious Learning, designs to oblige the World with a new Edition of St. Cyprian. It were to be wished, that this design were put in Execution, it being a matter of great Importance, that St. Cyprian should be Published by a Catholick Divine, who is throughly versed in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, and who, in his Annotations would not depart from the Rule of Faith, nor condemn or disapprove the practice of the Church; that so by this means the Works of the Father might without any danger be put into the hands of all People.

PONTIUS.

SAint Jerome reckons Pontius amongst the Ecclesiastical Authors, who writ the Life of St. Cyprian, whose Deacon he had been. Some Learned Persons, and Rigaltius in particular, seem to * 1.478 have doubted whether this work was not Supposititious; and indeed, we must own, that it is written with so much affectation of Eloquence, that it might well be suspected to be spuri∣ous, if St. Jerome had not owned it as genuine. But, after the Testimony of that Learned Father, I don't think we ought to question the truth of it. This Life is not written, as Rigaltius has well ob∣serv'd, after an Historical manner, but in the Language of one that desired to be thought an Orator, and has more Rhetorical Ornaments, than Historical Exactness in it. The Narration which ought to be plain and single, is full of Rhetorical Figures; and the Style, which ought to be concise, is swelling. In short, as I have observed already, there is rather an affectation of Eloquence, than any true Elo∣quence in this Book.

CORNELIUS.

COrnelius was ordained Bishop of Rome, towards the beginning of the year 251. Soon after, Novatian got himself ordained by three Bishops, but his Ordination being Irregular, was Condemned, and Cornelius acknowledged to be the true Bishop of Rome by all the Bishops * 1.479 in the World.

He was sent into Banishment in the Persecution of the Emperor Gallus, and then receiv'd the Crown of Martyrdom, towards the end of the Year 253. after he had presided in the Roman Chair two Years and some Months.

There are two Letters of this Pope amongst St. Cyprian's, and a 1.480 Eusebius mentions three more.

In the first, he informs Fabius, Bishop of Antiio••, of what had passed in the Synod held at Rome against Novatian, and sends him the opinion of the Italian and African Bishops.

In the second, he gives a more particular Account of the Decrees of this Synod; and in the third, he describes the Manners and Actions of Novatian. Eusebius has preserved a long Fragment of this last Letter, wherein Cornelius describes the Artifices which Novatian had used, to get himself Ordained Bishop, by abusing the simplicity and easiness of three Bishops, one of whom having acknowledged his Crime, did Penance for it. He afterwards observes, that there were at that time in the Church of Rome, 44 Priests, 7 Deacons, and as many Sub-Deacons, 42 Acolyths, 52 Porters and Exorcists, without reckoning the Widows and Poor, upwards of 1500, and a b 1.481 very great multitude of People.

He adds, That Novatian could never hope to arrive to the Episcopal Order, because he was Baptized in his Bed, and never received Imposition from the hands of the Bishop, that is to say, the Sacrament of Confirmation, and was afterwards ordained Priest only at the request of a Bishop, contrary to the Order of the Church, which Prohibits the Ordaining of those who had been Baptized after that man∣ner: He reproaches him for denying his Sacerdotal Function in time of Persecution; as also for obli∣ging those of his own Party, when he gave them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (instead of an∣swering Amen, as was the custom of the Church) to Swear, that they would never return to Cornelius's Party. Lastly, he informs Fabius, that the Confessors of Rome had left his Party, and that several Bi∣shops, whose names he sends him, were condemned in a Synod. This Letter, as well as the others, sent by Cornelius to the East, were in all probability written in Greek. In the Bibliotheca Patrum, we find a very short Letter, attributed to Cornelius, directed to Lupinicus, Bishop of Vienna; but that Let∣ter does not belong to this Pope, no more than the two others which go under his name in the De∣cretals. For first of all it is not of the same Style with those we find in St. Cyprian. Secondly, the word Mass, which was unknown at that time, occurs there. And thirdly, it is unworthy of this Pope, and 'tis plain, it was counterfeited by some ignorant Impostor. The Style of Cornelius, as far as we are able to judge of it, by those few Letters of his that are still extant, is not very lofty; though he sets off what ever he says, turning every thing to his own advantage, and does not spare his Enemy in the least.

NOVATIAN. * 1.482

NOvatian, who had been a Philosopher before he was a Christian, was, as we have hinted already, Baptized in his Bed, being dangerously ill. He was afterwards ordained Priest of the Church of Rome, at the instance of his Bishop, who obtained this Favour for him from the Clergy and People, who would have opposed it. Cornelius accuses him for absconding in a Chamber during the Persecution, and for answering the Deacons, who desired him to go out and Baptize some Catechumens, That he would not be a Priest any longer, but that he would follow another sort of Philosophy. Being Master of a great deal of Wit, Knowledge and Eloquence, he might have been very serviceable to the Church, if his Ambition to be a Bishop, which was, in a manner, the sole occasion of the Apostacy of the first Heresiarchs, had not carried him to a Separation. After the Death of Pope Fabian, he wrote in the Name of the Clergy of Rome, a very Elegant Letter to St. Cyprian, which is the thirtieth amongst those of that Father, and he still continued in the Communion of the Church during the Va∣cancy of that See. But as soon as Cornelius was chosen in Fabius's room, pushed forward by his Envy and Jealousie, he attacked his Ordination, accused him of several Crimes, and published a Libel against him. The principal Plea he made use of, was, That Cornelius admitted those who had been guilty of Idolatry to Communion; and to make the best advantage of this Accusation, he maintained, That we never ought to suffer those Persons to participate of the Communion, who had fallen into Idolatry. So he separated from Cornelius, and from those who believed, that the Church might receive them again. The greater part of those who had suffered Couragiously for the Faith of Jesus Christ, not being able to endure that others, who had not shewn the same Constancy and Resolution, should (if I may use the Expression) stand on the same level with themselves, embraced his Party, together with some Priests. Novatus, a Priest of Afric, who had raised great Feuds against St. Cyprian at Carthage, joyned himself to Novatian, and brought with him those of his own Faction. a 1.483 It was he who gave him that per∣nicious Advice to get himself Ordained Bishop. Novatian, the better to execute this design, sent two of his own Cabal to three simple ignorant Bishops, who lived in a small Province of Italy, and prevailed with them to come to Rome, under a pretence of accommodating Affairs, and putting a stop to some Divisions. As soon as these three Bishops were come to Rome, he shut them up in a Chamber, and caused himself to be ordained Bishop of Rome by them, about Ten a Clock at Night, and this, after he had made them drunk, if we may believe Cornelius. Immediately after his Ordination he dispatched two Letters to the Bishops of the other Provinces, and sent some Deputies into Afric to get his Ordination approved: But the African Bishops rejected his Deputies, and ratified Cornelius's Ordination. The rest of the Bishops also adhered to Cornelius: And one of the three who had ordained Novatian, acknow∣ledged his Fault, and did Penance for it. The Confessors gave him up to Cornelius, who having got him condemned in a Synod of Sixty Bishops, wholly turned him out of the Church. He continued however still to teach this Doctrine, That the Church neither could nor ought to admit those to the Com∣munion who had Apostatized: And as this Severity pleased abundance of People, so he became the Head of a Heresie, which disturbed the Peace of the Church for a very long time.

Besides, this Letter which he writ before his Separation in the name of the Clergy of Rome, St. Jerome tells us, he composed the following Treatises, viz. of the Passover, the Sabbath, Circumcision, the High Priest, Prayer, Jewish Meals; of Firmness of Mind with relation to Attalus, and many more, together with a great Volume about the Trinity, which is, as it were, an abridgment of Tertullian's Work, that has been by several persons attributed to St. Cyprian; not that Tertullian made a Book expresly about the Trinity, but because he had borrowed whatever he says out of the Books of Tertullian upon the Trinity. We have none of these Works under the Name of Novatian, but 'tis extremely probable, that the Treatise of the Trinity, and that of the Jewish Meats, that are to be found in Tertullian, are the same which St. Jerome attributed to Novatian.

And indeed, as for the Book of the Trinity, Ruffinus observes, that it was not composed by St. Cyprian, under whose Name it went, but by Tertullian. St. Jerome, who saw farther into this matter than Ruf∣finus, takes notice in the Apology which he has composed against him, that it was not written by Ter∣tullian, but by Novatian. There are several Reasons which make it evidently appear, that the Book we now have, is the very same with that mentioned by St. Jerome and Ruffinus. For in the first place, it carries the same Title. Secondly, it imitates Tertullian, and uses his Arguments. Thirdly, the Style of it is polite enough, and the Terms very pure. Fourthly, we find some Passages there against the Di∣vinity of the Holy Ghost, a Fault which Ruffinus and St. Jerome observe to have been in the Book of the Trinity, which they cited, and which might have been inserted afterwards by the Macedonians. For this Author establishes very Orthodox Principles concerning the Mystery of the Trinity, which prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, as well as that of the Son.

It is very probable likewise, that the Treatise about Jewish Meats, attributed to Tertullian, belongs to Novatian, as well by reason of the conformity of the Style, as because the Author observes in the

beginning, that he wrote two Letters, wherein he demonstrated, that the Jews knew not what is the true Circumcision, or what is the true Sabbath. All which agrees with Novatian, who, according to * 1.484 St. Jerome, wrote two Treatises upon the same Subjects.

The Design of this Treatise is to shew, That the Animals forbidden to be eaten by the Mosaical Law, were not absolutely, and in themselves impure. To demonstrate the Truth of this Assertion, he tells us, that the Fruits of Trees were the first Nourishment of Mankind; that afterwards they eat the Flesh of Animals; that the Law came in afterwards, which made a distinction between those Crea∣tures that might be eaten, and those that were prohibited; that under this Dispensation they were called Unclean, not because they were really so in their own Nature, since they were the Creatures of God, but first, to instruct Men to avoid the Vices that were figured, and b 1.485 represented by these Ani∣mals; and in the second place, to serve as a Remedy against Intemperance; that Jesus Christ, who is the end and accomplishment of the Law, has given liberty to Men to eat of all sorts of Meats, provided they don't violate the bounds of Christian Sobriety; and from thence he takes occasion to reprove the Irregularities and Disorders of some Christians, who lived intemperately. He observes; that this is by no means fitting for those Persons who are to pray Night and Day. At last, out of the num∣ber of Meats that are permitted to be eaten, he excepts those that have been offered to Idols, from which the Primitive Christians abstained very Religiously; and he concludes all with these Words, that are an Abridgment of his whole Discourse: Having therefore shewn what is the nature of Meats; (for he had before discovered the Genius of the Mofaical Law, and explained the nature of the Evangelical Liberty)

Let us live up to the Rules of Temperance, and abstain from things Offered to Idols, giving thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ his Son, to whom be Praise, Honour and Glory forever and ever. Amen.

Some think that Novatian writ this Letter during the Persecution of Decius, before he had separated from the Church; but his way of speaking, at the beginning, makes me rather believe, that it was composed after he became Chief of the Party, in the Persecution of Gallus and Volusian. This Author has abundance of Wit, Knowledge and Eloquence; his Style is pure, clean and polite; his Expressions choice, his Thoughts natural, and his way of Reasoning just: He is full of Citations of Texts of Scrip∣ture that are always to the purpose; and besides, there is a great deal of Order and Method in those Treatises of his we now have, and he never speaks but with a world of Candor and Moderation.

Saint MARTIALIS.

SAint Martialis came into France with St. Dionysins a 1.486 under the Emperor Decius towards the year of our Lord 250. Two Letters attributed to him, one written to the People of Burdeaux, the other to those of Tholouse, which were said to be found in the Vestry of b 1.487 St. Peter of Limoges in the Eleventh Century, and have been since c 1.488 frequently Printed, and inserted into the last Biblio∣theca Patrum, though no man questions that these Letters are Supposititious. For in the first place the Author tells us, that he lived with Jesus Christ, which can by no means agree with him who was Bishop of Limoges in 252. Secondly, in the Eighth Chapter of the Second Letter, he saith, that he Baptized King Stephen, and another Tyrant with his Noblemen. Now in the time of Martialis there was nei∣ther King nor Tyrant in France. Thirdly, he tells us, that in his time the Temples of the Gods were demolished, and that Churches were built by the Kings Authority, which does not agree with the time of St. Martialis. Fourthly, the Texts of Scripture quoted in these Letters follow the vulgar Transla∣ation, which was composed long after. Fifthly, the Author tells us, that he had eaten with Jesus Christ at the last Supper, though it is certain that none but the Apostles were there.

The Life of St. Martialis, Printed at the end of Abdias, which carries the Name of Aurelian Bishop of Limoges, is a spurious Piece, no less than the Epistles of that Bishop, and full as Fabulous as the Histo∣ry of Abdias, to which it is joyned. The Author by a very gross Error supposes, that Vespasian succeed∣ed Nero immediately. He tells us that St. Martialis received from Jesus Christ after his Resurrection, the same Power which the Apostles had; that he never suffered either Hunger, Thirst, or Pain, and recounts several other Fables concerning him, which are no less ridiculous than those that are to be found upon the same Subject in the two Councils of Limoges, held in the Years 1029, and 1031.

SIXTUS or XYSTUS. * 1.489

IT is a long time ago, since under the name of Pope Sixtus, who presided in the Roman Chair in the Year 257. Ruffinus published a Book of a certain Pythagorean Philosopher named Sixtus, transla∣ted out of Greek into Latin. a 1.490 St. Jerome often reproaches him with this Imposture; St. Austin suffered himself at first to be deceived by it, and has cited it in his Book of Nature and Grace, as if it had been composed by Pope Sixtus, but afterwards b 1.491 he retracts his Error. Gelasius placed it amongst the Heretical Books, supposing it to have been written by some Christian. c 1.492 It is still extant, being a medley of Philosophical Sentences, useful indeed in themselves, and serviceable to the Truth, but ha∣ving little of the Spirit of Christianity in them. There is no mention made in it either of Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Prophets, or the Apostles; and it is full of the Errors of the Pythagoreans and the Stoics. It renders Man equal to God, and affirms that he is made of a Divine Substance, and would have him be without Passion, according to the Principle of the Stoics, and without Sin pur∣suant to the Doctrine of the Pelagians. There are several other Pelagian Errors to be found in it.

Saint GREGORY THAUMATURGUS.

SAint Gregory, whose Name at first was Theodorus, and afterwards Surnamed Thaumaturgus, that is to say, the Worker of Miracles, by reason of the great number of Miracles he is supposed to have wrought both in his Life-time, and after his Death, was born in the City of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus, descended of a Family that was very considerable as well for its Nobility, as for its great Pos∣sessions. He was educated in the Idolatrous Worship, having a Father who was extreamly bigotted to Paganism. After he had lost him at the Age of Fourteen years, his Mother would have him study Rhe∣toric to qualifie himself for the Bar. His Sister being married to a Lawyer, who was afterwards Go∣vernour of Palaestine, and being obliged to follow her Husband, Gregory and Athenodorus her Brothers went along with her, intending to go as far as Berytus, and there apply themselves to the Study of the Laws in a Celebrated School of that City. But being arrived at Caesarea in Palaestine, they there met Origen, who having exhorted them to study Philosophy, by little and little inspired into them the Principles of the Christian Faith, and soon after made them his Disciples. After they had been with him for the space of five years, Gregory being willing to testifie the great Obligations he had to Origen, and besides, to give him some publick Marks of his Acknowledgment, as he took his leave of him, composed a very eloquent Discourse, which he recited before a numerous Assembly invited to that So∣lemnity. After his return to Neo-Caesarea, he retired for some time, and lived a solitary Life, and was at last, contrary to his Inclinations, ordained Bishop of Neo-Caesarea by Phaedimus Bishop of Amasea, to∣wards the year of our Lord 240. At that time there were but very few Christians in that City, but the number of them was soon augmented by his vigilance and care, and by his Miracles, so that this Church became in a little time one of the most flourishing Churches in the World. Hs assisted at the first Council of Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus, as Eusebius tells us in the Sixth Book of his History, ch. 23. and Died a little after in the Year 265. This is an Abridgment of this Bishop's Life, drawn out of his Discourse to Origen, out of Eusebius, St. Basil, St. Jerome and St. Gregory Nyssen in the relation that he gives of the Life of this great Saint.

The Works of this Father (part whereof of Zinus's Version were Printed at Venice in Latin in 1574, and at Rome in 1594.) were collected and Printed in Greek by Gerrard Vossius, at Mentz in Quarto 1604, and afterwards in Folio at Paris 1621, with some other smaller Fathers.

The first, as well as the most Eloquent Work he has composed, is the Harangue he made to thank Origen, which was separately Published by Hoeschelius at the end of his Edition of Origen against Cel∣sus in 1605. He begins his Exordium with the difficulty of commending Origen as he deserved. After∣wards he tells him in what a strange manner the Providence of God conducted him to Caesarea, the Conversations this great Man held with him and his Brother to exhort them to the Study of Philoso∣phy, and to possess them with a Veneration for the Holy Scriptures and the Christian Religion; and afterwards he testifies the Regret he had to be obliged to quit a Master whom he so tenderly loved. This Harangue is very Eloquent, and we may say it is one of the most consummate pieces of Rhetoric that are any where extant amongst the Ancients. It was printed under the name of Gregory Thauma∣turgus in Greek, and in Latin at Antwerp in 1613. in Octavo.

The Second Book mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome as well as the first, is his Paraphrase upon Ecclesiastes. It was Translated by Jaccbus Billius, who attributed it to St. Gregory Nazianzen upon the Credit of a Manuscript in the King's Library. But certain it is, that it belongs to Gregory Thau∣maturgus,

not only because we read in Eusebius, and in St. Jerome, that he composed a Book bearing that Name, which we are no where told of St. Gregory Nazianzen, but also because we find there word * 1.493 for word a long Passage cited by St. Ierome, upon the fourth Chapter of Ecclesiastes, as taken out of the Paraphrase upon Ecclesiastes, done by Gregory Bishop of Pontus. I have no more to say of this Book, but only that it is a Paraphrase which largely explains the Moral Reflexions in Ecclesiastes.

St. Gregory Nyssen in his Life of this Father, takes notice of a Creed which, as he pretends, this Saint received from St. John in a Vision which he saw in the Night, and which was still preserved, being, as he says, written by the hand of Gregory Thaumaturgus. This Profession of Faith is as follows:

There is only One God the Father, who is the Father of the Living Word, his essential Wisdom, his Power, and his eternal Image; it is he who being Soveraignly perfect, has begotten a Son Soveraignly perfect as himself. He is the Father of the only Son. There is only one Lord, the only Son of the only Father, God begotten of God, the Character and Image of the Divinity, the efficacious Word by which all Creatures were formed, the true Son of the true Father, the invisible Son of the invisible Fa∣ther, the incorruptible of the Incorruptible, the Immortal of the Immortal, the eternal Son of him who is from all Eternity; and there is only one Holy Ghost, who proceeds from God, and was given to Men by the Son he is the Image of the Son, and a perfect Image of him that is perfect. He is Life, and the Principle of Life to those that Live; He is the Holy Spring, Holiness it self, and the Author of Sanctifica∣tion. By him God the Father is made manifest, who is above all things, and in all things, and God the Son, who is equally in all things. This is the perfect Trinity, which is not divided but is One in Glory, in Sovereignty and Eternity.

The following Words, which some Persons do still attribute to Gregory Thaumaturgus, belong to St. Gre∣gory Nyssen, who draws this Conclusion from the above-mentioned Profession.

There is therefore no created Person or dependent Being in the Trinity, it admits into it nothing that is Forreign, nothing that has been out of it during a time, or which afterwards began to be there; the Father was never without the Son, nor the Son without the Holy Ghost, but the Trinity has ever been immovable and invariable.

There is likewise attributed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus another Exposition of Faith, much longer, and translated by Turrianus, which some People might believe to be that which is cited by St. Basil, in his Sixty Fourth Epistle, directed to one whose Name was Aelian. But it is manifest, that this is diffe∣rent from that mentioned by St. Basil, and that it could not be composed by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: For, in the first place, it is different from that St. Basil speaks of, which was addressed to Aelian, and made in form of a Dispute, wherein he says, That the Father and Son were one in Hypostasis, and only distinguished by abstraction of the Mind, the words which the Sabellians abused; whereas in this which is neither addressed to Aelian, nor composed after the manner of a Dispute, the Error of Sabellius is clearly rejected; and it is formally said, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are Three Persons, and Three Hypostases. In the second place, it cannot be of the time of St. Gregory Thaumatargus; for the Author expresly refutes the Arians, saying, That those who affirm, that the Son is created of nothing, are Enemies to the Faith of the Church, and that those who reject the Word Consubstantial, are out of the Church. Besides, when he explains the Mystery of the Incarnation, he speaks after a manner which makes it credible, that he had the Nestorians and Eutychians in view. Canisius attributes this Profession of Faith to Apollinarius, but it too plainly refutes the Error of that Heretick to be ever his. However it be, it was composed after the time of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. We ought to pass the same Judg∣ment upon the twelve Anathema's, which follow this Exposition, and are likewise composed out of the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians.

No body doubts of the Canonical Epistle of this Saint, which is cited in the sixth Council, and is set down by Balsamon. It has all the Characters of Antiquity, which any one can desire in such Monu∣ments. It was written after the Goths had ravag'd Asia, under Galienus, and it is directed to a Bishop, whose Name we know not, to instruct him how he was to prescribe Pennance to those who had fallen into any scandalous Crimes, during the Inundations of the Barbarians. In the first Canon he says, that those who having been taken Prisoners by the Barbarians, had eaten the Food which was given them, ought not upon that account to suffer Penance, as well because the Barbarians did not sacrifice any Vi∣ctims to Idols, as also because that which defiles the Man is not the Meat which enters into the Man, but that which goes out of the Man. That for the same reason those Captive Women who had been forcibly carried away by the Barbarians, were not to be blamed; but nevertheless, that those who had lived dissolute Lives before their Captivity, were not easily to be admitted to Communion.

In the second Canon, and the three following, which to speak properly are only one Canon, he de∣tests the Avarice and Injustice of those Persons, who took the advantage of the Captivity of these mi∣serable Creatures to plunder them of their Goods. He shews, that they are obliged to make Restitu∣tion, and that they cannot keep in their Possession the Goods of other Men. In the sixth, he endeavours to shew with what Horror the World ought to look upon the Cruelty of those Persons, who detained as Captives those who had freed themselves out of the hands of the Barbarians. In the seventh he or∣dains, that such Offenders should not be received so much as into the number of Hearers, (this was the first Degree of Penance) who joyning themselves with the Barbarians, had fallen upon the Christians, either by Murdering them, or shewing the Infidels where they were fled for shelter. In the eighth, he decrees the same Punishment against those who should be convicted to have broken open any ones House during the Ravage of the Barbarians; but then he moderates this Rig••ur in favour of those

who should make a voluntary Confession, and these he places in the third degree of Penitents. 'Tis also under this Class, that in the ninth Canon he ranges those who kept back the things which belong∣ed to others, which they found in the midst of the Field, or in their Houses, as soon as they were con∣victed of it: But if they confessed the Fact, he believed them not to be unworthy to communicate at Prayers, which was the last degree of Penance. In the tenth, he exhorts those that were willing to restore their Neighbours Goods, to do it without making any sordid Gain, by exacting any thing for what they had discovered, kept or found, or for any other reason whatever it might be. The last Canon is an Explication of the different degrees of Penance. Weeping and Groaning, says he, consist in standing without the Church Porch, where the Sinner ought to beg earnestly of those who go in to pray to God for him, and this is the first degree. The second degree is that of Hearers, and is per∣formed in the Church-Porch, where the Sinner is to tarry with the Catechumens, and go out with them, after having heard the Holy Scripture, as being unworthy of Prayer. In the Substration, which is the third degree, the Party offending is admitted into the Body of the Church, but must go out with the Catechumens. Lastly, the fourth degree is that of standing up when the Person may tarry in the Church with the Faithful, without being obliged to go out of it with the Catechumens; and this is followed with the participation of the Sacraments. Morinus questions whether this last Canon belongs to Gre∣gory Thaumaturgus, and conjectures, that it has been added by one of the Modern Greeks, to explain the Letter of this Saint. This Conjecture seems to be well grounded.

There goes likewise, under the name of this Father, a Discourse about the Soul, addressed to one Tatian, which contains the Decision of several Questions concerning the Nature of the Soul, and follows the Principles of the Peripatetics, but in truth it has not the least resemblance of St. Gregory's Style; and besides, it seems to be the product of the following Age, when Aristotle's Philosophy began to be in some Reputation. To be short, it is rather the work of a Philospher, than of a Bishop.

I am no less satisfied, that the Sermons which carry the name of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, do really belong to another Author; for besides; that none of the Ancients have ever mentioned them, they are altogether of a different Style, which is so far from approaching the Elegance and Politeness so familiar to St. Gregory, that it is mean and childish. Secondly, The Author of these Sermons speaks of the My∣steries of the Trinity and Incarnation, in such terms as shew, that he lived after the rise of the Heresies of the a 1.494 Axians and Nestorians. He often affects to make use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when he speaks of the Virgin Mary, and bestows excessive Praises upon her, which were not customary till after the Coun∣cil of Ephesus. Lastly, it is evident, that these Homilies were composed when the Church enjoy'd Peace, and celebrated it's Festivals with great Solemnity.

The three Sermons upon the Annunciation resemble the Style of Proclus of Constantinople, as it has been observed by him, who has made some Notes upon the Homilies of that Author. The last of the three has also been attributed to St. Chrysostome, but the difference of the Style shews that it is not his.

The fourth Sermon is upon the Baptism of JESUS CHRIST, which Festival was anciently celebrated on the day of Epiphany; it is more eloquent than the three preceding ones, and appears to be composed by another Author, who nevertheless was not St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, for the very same reason we have offered before; there we find the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that of Consubstantial.

St. DIONYSIUS of Alexandria.

DYONYSIUS, a 1.495 who had formerly been a Disciple of Origen, and Catechist of the Church of Alexandria, succeeded Heraclas in the Episcopal See of that Church, in the Third b 1.496 Year of the Empire of Philippus, and 247 of the Nativity of our Saviour. He was one of the most Learned and most Illustrious Bishops of his Age; and being consulted from all parts upon matters of Religion, wrote a vast number of Letters to the most famous Bishops of the Church, besides several Works against the Hereticks, and some Treatises of Divinity and Discipline. St. Jerome has composed a Catalogue of all his Works, and Eusebius has enriched his History with several Passages that he has

borrowed out of him. The Fragments that are yet ext••nt in Eusebius and St. Athanasius, make us greatly regret the Loss of his Writings, as Works that would have been of infinite Advantage and Use * 1.497 in the Explication of the Doctrine of the Church. The Catalogue of them, as it is set down by St. Jerom, being without any order, we shell therefore endeavour to make another of all the Volumes of this Dionysius, whereof we have any knowledge, according to the order of time in which they were written, not forgetting at the same time to take notice of those Fragments that are to be found in Eu¦sebius and in St. Athanasius.

The first Letter which he wrote, is directed to Febius Bishop of Antioch, immediately after the Per∣secution of the Emperor Decius; that is to say, at the end of the year 250. Eusebius has preserved two Fragments of it in the Sixth Book, Chap. 41. & 44. of his History. In the first, he gives an Ac∣count of the horrid Cruelty of the Persecutors that fell so severely upon the poor Christians of Alex∣andria, as well towards the end of the Empire of Bhilippus, as also after Decius had published his Edict against them; and he gives us a Narrative of the Martyrdom of several Persons. In the Second, he relates the History of an Old Man, whose Name was Serapion, who having fallen away in the timeof Persecution, was ejoyn'd a course of Penance, till being ready to die, he sent a Young Boy to fetch him the Body of Jesus Christ, that he might die in the Communion of the Church.

He describes the Persecution of Decius in his Letter against Germanus, though it was not writ till long after; and he particularly relates what happen'd to himself; how, having been forcibly hurried away out of Alexandria by some Soldier•• against his Will, he was conducted to a Town called Tapo∣firis, where being rescued by a Company of Country Fellows that fell upon his Guards, he was obli∣ged to abscond for a while, being only accompanied by some Priests.

c 1.498 This is that Persecution, which is mentioned in the Fragment of a Letter to Domitius and Didy∣mus, related by Eusebius towards the end of the Eleventh Chapter of his History, Lib. 6. It was also about the end of this Persecution, when he was as yet in Exile, that he wrote a Letter concerning Penance to the Brethren in Aegypt, wherein he delivered his own Opinion, as to the manner with which they ought to treat those that had fallen away and he there distinguishes between the different degrees of Offences. He likewise wrote at the same time a Book upon the same occasion to Conon Bishop of Her∣mopolis, a Letter to his Clergy at Alexandria, one to the Christians of Laodece••, where Thelymidres was Bishop, and one to the Armenians, over whom Meruzanes was Pastor, which treated of Penance; and a small Treatise of Martyrdom to Origen.

After Peace was restored to the Church in the Year 251. Dionysius having received a Letter from Cornelius Bishop of Rome against Novatian, who had also written to him himself, he answered both one and the other. His Letter to Novatian, whom he calls Novatus, is taken notice of by Etisebius in his 7th Book, Chap. 45. He advises him, if he had a mind to perswade the World that he was Or∣dained against his Will, as he publickly affirmed, to return back to his Duty, and use all his Endeavours to re-establish Peace and Concord. His Letter to Cornelius is plainly what they called in the Language of those times, a Letter of Communion. He informs him, that he was summoned to a Synod of An∣tioch, by Helenus Bishop of Tarsus, by Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Theoctistus of Palaestine, in which they resolved to confirm the Discipline of Novatus; that word was sent him, that Fabius Bishop of Antioch was dead, and Demetrian elected in his room; that Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem died in Prison. To these Letters he added one to the Christians at Rome, concerning Peace and Penance; and another to the Confessors to disswade them from the Faction of Novatian. Afterwards he wrote ano∣ther to the Romans, which he sent by Hippolytus, wherein he discourses of the Duty and Function of Dea∣cons; and two more to the Confessors of Rome, after they had entred into the Unity of the Church. These are the Letters which he wrote under the Pontificate of Cornelius, and are mentioned by Eusebius in the last Chapter of his Sixth Book.

Under the Pontificate of Pope Stephen, that succeeded Cornelius in the beginning of the Year 255. Di∣onysius wrote a Letter to him, in which he acquaints him, That all the Eastern Churches were at last agreed to condemn the rigorous Novelty of Novatus, and speaks to him of the Question concerning the Validity of the Baptism of Hereticks, that was in Agitation between him and St. Cyprian. After the Death of Stephen, which happened in the Year 257. he wrote another upon the same Subject to Sixtus his Successor, and begs of him to consider the Consequence of that business, and not to pursue it with the heat of his Predecessor, who had written Letters to Helenus, to Firmilian, and to all the Bishops of Cappadocia and Cicilia, wherein he sent them word, that he would not Communicate any more with them, because they re-baptized Hereticks; which, he says, was determined in the Councils of the Bishops. In the same Letter, he speaks against the Error of the Sabellians, that arose in Ptolemais a City of Pentapolis; against which, as he tells him there, he had written a long Letter, or rather a Discourse which he sent him. He wrote likewise to Dionysius and Philemon, Presbyters of the Church of Rome, about the Baptism of Hereticks. In his Epistle to Philemon, he tells him, That his Prede∣cessor Heraclas caused the Hereticks to abjure their Errours without Baptizing them a-new; that this was the Custom of his Church; but nevertheless that he had been informed, that the Africans had for a

long time observed the contrary, and that it was Established in the East in a very numerous Assembly of Bishops held at Iconium and Synnada, and in many other places; that matters standing thus, his Ad∣vice was, that their Customs and Decrees ought not to be reversed, since it is written, That we must not remove the Land mark vvhich our Fathers have given us. This is the true Opinion of Dionysius concerning this matter, and St. Jerome wrongfully accuses him to have been of St. Cyprian's Party, since he tells us in express Terms, That we ought to follow the Judgment of the Church in this Point. He says the same thing in his Letter to Dionysius, who was afterwards Bishop of Rome, and delivers his Sentiments there very boldly against Novatian. ••ostly, He wrote a Letter, which is his Fifth, to Sixtus, concerning the Baptism of Hereticks, in which he maintains, That if a Man has been Baptized amongst Hereticks, with Ceremonies wholly different from those of the Church, and comes at last to discover it, after he has continued in the Church a long time, participating of the Prayers, and Communicating as others, without having been Baptized, he needs not be Baptized a new, since he has received the Body of Jesus Christ several times, and answered Amen with the rest of the Faithful. Eusebius seems to mention a sixth Letter, written upon the same occasion to the same Pope; where, as he tells us, he has examined this Question more copiously, though perhaps it is not different from this last.

After Sixtus's Death, Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a Letter concerning Lucian, to Dionysius that succeeded Pope Sixtus, towards the end of the Year 258. 'Twas in this, or rather in the follovving Year, that he wrote his Letter against Germanus; in vvhich, after he has described the Persecution he suffered in the time of Decius, he relates what happened to him under that of Vaterian; how the Pre∣fect Aemilianus prohibited him to hold any more Assemblies of Christians; how having refused to obey his Orders, he was sent along with his Presbyters, to a Village near Cephro in Lybia; hovv these Proceedings did not hinder the Christians from holding their ordinary Assemblies. Lastly, how he preached the Gospel, and converted great Numbers of Pagans to Christianity, whilst he rarried at Cephro.

While he continued in this Exile, he wrote some Paschal Letters; that is to say, Letters in form of Homilies upon the Festival of Easter; in which, according to the ancient Custom, he ascertains the time of that Feast. He sent one of them to Flavius, another to Domitius and Didymus, which I ima∣gine to be different from the first that is addressed to the same Persons; wherein he proves, That the Feast of Easter ought not to be celebrated till after the vernal Equinox. He composed a Canon or Table of Eight Years. He likewise vvrote another to the Church of Alexandria, and to many others. Peace was no sooner restored to the Church, but the returned back to Alexandria; tho' he was immedi∣ately obliged to depart from thence, by reason of a Sedition that arose in that City d 1.499

It was during this Retreat, that he wrote a Letter to Hierax, a Passage out of which Eusebius has borrowed, that gives an Account of a Riot that happened at that time. He likewise wrote another Letter to his Church, which he sent to them on Easter-day.

A Pestilence e 1.500 that succeeded this War, obliged St. Dionysius to comfort and encourage his Congre∣gation with another Letter, in which he describes that admirable Charity wherewith the Christians re∣lieved and buried those that were seized with the Plague, in a very lively manner.

In short, during the whole time of his Retirement, he never ceas'd to write to his Brethren, and did them more good by his Letters, than he could have done by his Presence. Eusebius mentions another Paschal Letter of his concerning the Sabbath, and one concerning Spiritual Exercises, and a third to Hermammon, written in the Seventh Year of Galienas, which fell out in the Year 264. some Fragments of which he has preserved in Lib. 7. c. 1. 10. and 23. And yet St. Dionysius was not only content to exhort, or instruct the Faithful by his Letters; but he applied himself vigorously to confute and ex∣tinguish the Errours that sprung up in his time.

An Aegyptian Bishop named Nepos, understanding the Promises of the Gospel in a gross sence, and maintaining the Reign of Jesus Christ upon Earth for a Thousand Years, with an inflexible Obstinacy composed a Book which he Entituled, A Confutation of the Allegorists, where he endeavoured to prove his Opinion out of the Apocalypse. He brought over abundance of People to this Opinion in that part of Aegypt that was called Arsinoe, which unhappily proved an occasion of Schism and Division in those Churches. Dionysius happening to be there, judged it expedient to examine this Doctrine pub∣lickly: And because they generally set up Nepos's Book as an unanswerable Treatise, he confuted it Viva voce, and afterwards wrote two Books against it, Entituled, Of the Divine Promises. In the First, he delivers his own Opinion upon this Question. In the Second, he answers all the Reasons ur∣ged by Nepos, and his Testimonies drawn out of the Revelations. Saying upon this last Head, That some Persons have rejected the Apocalypse, as being the Book of the Heretick Cerinthus, who admitted of no other Beatitude, but that which consisted in carnal Pleasures; that as for himself, he durst not entirely reject it, since it was esteemed by a great many Christians, but that he was perswaded it

hid a ••idden meaning; which could not be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by any body; that he acknowledged that Book to be written by an Author inspired by the Holy Ghost, though he did not believe it to have been written by St. John the Evangelist, but by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the ••••me Name; as he endeavours to prove by the difference of the Style and Though•••• Eusebi••s has preserved considerable Fragments of this book, from whence we have drawn the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Passages. See the Third Book of his History, Chap. 28. and l. 7. Ch. 24. and 25.

Another Errour, that Dionysius of Alexandria opposed and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, if I may use the Expression in its Cradle, was much more considerable. T•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishops in Pentapolis that embraced the Errour of Sabellian, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Th•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Holy Trinity. This Opinion was so deeply rooted and established in those Quarters, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Son of God was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mentioned in their Churches. Dionysius, to whom this Province belonged, by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Preheminence of the Patriarchal See of Alexandria, to preside and watch over all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉; sent his Legates to that place to undeceive the People that were in an 〈◊〉〈◊〉; but being not able to go thither him∣self in Person, he was constrained to write to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to confute this 〈◊〉〈◊〉. His 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Letter was ad∣dressed to Ammon Bishop of Berenice, the Se•…•… to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Euphranor, and the Last to Am∣mon and Euporus. The End which he proposed to himself in writing these Letters, was to perswade these People, who had not been very well instructed, that the Father was not the Son, and that He was not the Father, but the Son that was Incarnate and Died for 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But that happened to Dionysius in this Affair, that usually happens to most Men, that while he opposed and attack'd one Errour, he spoke very favourably of the contrary: Thus going about to prove, that the Son was a distinct Per∣son from the Father, he chanced to say, That he was the Work of the Father; That he was with re∣spect to the Father what a Vine is to the Vine dresser, a Ship to the Builder. And lastly, That the Son did not exist before he was made. These Expressions, that seemed to establish an opposite Errour to that of Sabellius, which afterwards was taken up by Arius, gave occasion to some well-affected Ca∣tholick Persons, to carry a Complaint to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, against the Bishop of Alexandria. But he being advertised of the matter, wrote Four Books which he presented to the Pope; vvherein he refutes not only the Errour of the Sabellians, but also that which vvas attributed to himself; and ha∣ving desired the Pope to send him all the Objections that were urged against him, he wrote a Treatise vvhich he called, A Refutation and an Apology; because he refutes the Errours of other Men, and like∣wise Justifies himself. St. Athanasius, from whom I have borrowed this Account, relates divers other Passages, that were extracted out of this Work, in a Book which he wrote about the Opinion of Di∣onysius of Alexandria; in vvhich, he invincibly proves against the Arians, who had the Confidence to make use of his Authority, That his Notions of the Trinity were very conformable to those of the Church, though he did not much approve of the term Consubstantial.

To conclude, Dionysius of Alexandria a little before his Death, defended the Divinity of Jesus Christ against Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch: For, being invited to the Synod that was held at Antioch against that Heretick in the Year 264 and not being able to go thither, by reason of his Old Age and Infirmity, he wrote several Letters to the Church at Antioch, wherein he explains his own Opinion, and refutes the Errour of Paulus Samosatenus, whom he looked upon as so great a Criminal for advancing this Errour, that he would not even condescend to Salute him in his Letter, considering him already as an Heretick, and one that was separated from the Church; as we find it observed by the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, and by Eusebius after them, in his Seventh Book, Chap. 27. and 29.

Baronius thinks that this Letter of Dionysius, is the same with that which Turrianus published, which is inserted in the first Volume of the last Edition of the Councils P. 850. But he is mistaken; for that Letter, which the Fathers of the Council of Antioch speak of, was written to the Church of Antioch; whereas we find this is addressed to Paulus Samosatenus, as appears by these first words: We Answer what you de∣mand of us, that we may oblige you to speak your Thoughts plainly and openly. From whence it is manifest, That this Letter, if it is not Supposititious, was written soon after the First Synod of Antioch, when Paulus Samosatenus promised to renounce his Opinion; and in all appearance seem'd to have chang'd it effectually. But it's probable enough, that this Letter, which is cited by none of the Ancients, and which was unknown to the World before Turrianus's time was never written by Dionysius of Alexan∣dria. For in the first place, The Fathers of the Second Council of Antioch tell us plainly, That Di∣onysius of Alexandria would by no means salute Paulus Samosatenus: What reason is there therefore to imagine, that he wrote to him twice, as this Letter supposes? Secondly, The Style of this Letter is ex∣tremely different from that of the other Letters writ by Dionysius. In the Third place, the Author of this Letter approves of the Word Consubstantial, and expresly tells us, That the Fathers called the Son of God by that Name. Now it is certain, that both Dyonysius of Alexandria, and the Synod of An∣tioch, disallowed that term; and in the time of St. Dionysius, a Man could not say, that the Fathers commonly made use of it. And if St. Dionysius of Alexandria had ever used it, is it to be believed that St. Athanasius would have forgotten or omitted so memorable a Passage, when he was writing in his Defence.

It is not to be imagined, that we have given a Catalogue of all the Works of Dionysius of Alexandria; for he composed so great a number, that notwithstanding all the Diligence that Eusebius used in draw∣ing a perfect Catalogue, he is forced to say at last, and several other Letters. Now the Letters of this Father were Treatises, and his Treatises were written in the way of Letters; for after this man∣ner he wrote some Books concerning Nature, to a young Gentleman named Timotheus; a Book of Temptations to Euphranor, and several Letters to Basilides; in one of which, he tells him that he had

composed a Commentary upon the beginning of Ecclesiastes. We have only now one of his Letters to Basilides, Printed in the first Tome of the Councils, where he treats of some matters relating to Disci∣pline. * 1.501 'Tis divided into Four Canons; in the First of which, he discourses about the Fast, which the Ancient Christians observed before Easter; and tells us, That some Christians fasted Six days before Easter; others Two, others Three, after an extraordinary manner; That we ought not to break our Fast before Midnight; and that those that were able to hold on till Easter-morning, were more ge∣nerous; That there were some Persons, who, though they did not fast at all, nay, had spent the Four first days of the last Week in sumptuous and delicate Entertainments, yet imagined they did Wonder∣ful things in fasting only two days: But that they were not to be compared with those that fasted seve∣ral. In the second Canon he says, That Women ought not to enter into the Church, or receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ while they have their Courses, but to offer their Prayes to God at Home; since none by right ought to enter the Sanctum Sanctorum, that is not pure in Body and Spirit. In the Third, he particularly Counsels those that are superannuated, to abstain from the use of Mar∣riage, that they may the better attend their Devotions. In the Fourth, he leaves those Persons that have had an Illusion in the Night-time, at liberty to receive or forbear the Eucharist; following the Dictates and Motions of their own Conscience.

Anastasius of Nice, in his 23d Question upon Genesis, cites a Passage drawn out of a Book of Dionysius of Alexandria against Origen; but there is no ground to believe that it was written by our Dionysius, who was so far from being his Adversary, that he was both his Disciple and Defender. He died in the Year 264, after he had held the See of Alexandria Seventeen years, and had one Maximus for his Suc∣cessor. The Style of this Author is Pompous and Lofty; he is excellent in his Descriptions and Ex∣hortations; in his Polemical Discourses he falls upon his Adversaries with all the Vigour imaginable; he perfectly well understood the Opinion, the Discipline and Precepts of the Church; he had sound piercing Judgment; he was very moderate, very discreet, and ready to take Advice. In short, the Loss of his Works is one of the most considerable Losses we could have sustain'd in this kind.

THEOGNOSTUS

THEOGNOSTUS of Alexandria, is an Author, (unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerome) whom St. Athanasius cites with Commendation, and whose Books were extant in Photius's time, who read them over. We don't precisely know the time when he liv'd, though we can∣not doubt but he was some time after Origen, and long before the Council of Nice. Photius informs us, That he composed Seven Books, Entituled, Hypotyposes; that is to say, Instructions; and he gives us this Account of that Work: In the first Book he treats of the Father, and endeavours to shew,

That he is the Creator of all things, against the Opinion of those that suppose Matter to be Eternal.

In the Second Book he advances some Arguments, whereby he pretends it necessarily follows, that the Father had a Son; but speaking of this Son, he says,

That he is a Creature above all Creatures that have Reason: He likewise attributes to the Son of God several other Qualities of the like Nature, as Origen has done: Whether he was of the same Opinion, or whether he speaks after that manner, ra∣ther by way of Disputation, than a Design to propose his own true Doctrine; or in short, whether he was somewhat mistaken in the Truth, and that to accommodate himself to the weakness of his Audi∣tors, who having no Knowledge of the true Religion, were not capable of comprehending a perfect Instruction, he supposed it most expedient to give them an imperfect Knowledge of the Son of God, than not to speak of him at all. But though a Man may follow this Method in a Dispute, or in a Discourse, when he is constrained to say the same things often, that are not altogether conformable to his own Opinion of the matter; yet 'tis a Weakness to make use of this Pretence, to excuse those Er∣rours that are published in any Book, where we are obliged to speak the Truth to all the World. In the Third Book, speaking of the Holy Ghost, he brings some Arguments to prove, that there is an Holy Ghost; but in the rest he falls into the same Extravagancies with those of Origen in his Book of Principles. In the Fourth Book he talks erroneously about Angels and Daemons, and assigns small, Bodies to them. In the Fifth and Sixth, he treats of the Incarnation, and uses all his Endeavours to demonstrate after this manner, That it was possible for God to make himself Man. This Book likewise is full of several groundless Fancies: As for Example, when he has a mind to prove that the Son of God is circumscribed in Place by our Imagination; though in Truth he cannot be known there. In the Seventh Book, which he wrote concerning the Creation of God, he discourseth of mat∣ters of Religion after a manner conformable to the Doctrine of the Church, and especially of the Son of God, of whom he treats in the Last Part. His Style is elevated, and very 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: His Discourses have the Beauty of Old Athens, but without Affectation, so that in his Compositions he does not go very far from the ordinary manner of Conversation; and yet he avoids saying mean things.

Thus I have shown you what Photius has informed us of this Author. St. Athanasius calls him an Admirable Man, Studious and Eloquent; and is so far from accusing him for having any Unorthodox Sentiments about the Divinity of the Word, that he cites him as a Witness of Consubstantiality.

Learn. says he, O Arians, ye Rebels to Jesus Christ, that the Eloquence of Theognostus has made use of the Word Substance; for behold after what manner he discourseth in his Second Book of In∣structions:

The Substance of the Son is not a strange Substance, he was not produced of nothing, but was begotten of the Substance of the Father, as the Raye is of the Light, or a Vapour of Water; * 1.502 for the Vapour is not Water, not is the Ray Light; but neither one nor the other is a Stranger to that which produces it: Thus the Son is as it were the gentle running of the Substance of the Father; yet so as that the Father suffers no Division: For as the Sun is not diminished, though it produces Rayes continually; so likewise the Father is not diminished in begetting the Son, who is his Image.

This Passage, and the Authority of St. Athanasius, ought to convince us, that Photius has wrongfully accused Theognostus to have erred concerning the Divinity of the Son, upon the score of a few Expressions that did not agree with those of his own Age; without taking notice, that though the Ancients have spoken differently as to this Point, yet the Foundation of the Doctrine was always the same; and that it is an horrid Injustice to require them to speak as nicely, and with as much precaution, as those that lived after the Birth and Condemnation of Heresies. But 'tis an ordinary Fault with Photius, who lived in an Age when these Mysteries were illustrated, and in which People talk'd with a great deal of exact∣ness, to condemn the Ancients almost all along with too much Severity.

The same St. Athanasius in another Work concerning the Explication of these words in the Gospel; He that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost shall receive forgiveness of his Sin, neither in this World, nor in that to come; tells us, that Origen and Theognostus have written, that the Sin against the Holy Ghost was falling away after Baptism, and after he has delivered the Passage out of Origon: He likewise adds that out of Theognostus, who says,

That he who has passed only the First or Second Bounds is less cul∣pable; but he that passes the Third, has no hopes of Pardon.

That the First and Second Bound is the Knowledge of the Father, and that the Third is Baptism, which makes us Partakers of the Holy Ghost; which is confirmed by these Words of the Gospel, I have still many things to tell you, &c. after which, continues he,

Our Saviour levels, if I may so say, his Discourse in favour of those who cannot compre∣hend the most perfect things; whereas the Holy Ghost dwells in those that are perfect. But we must not therefore conclude, That the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost surpasseth that of Jesus Christ, but that our Saviour abaseth himself in favour of those that are not altogether perfect; whereas the Holy Ghost is the Seal of Perfection, which we receive in Baptism: Thus it is not that the Holy Ghost is more excellent than the Son, because the Sin which is committed against him, is without hopes of Remission; but it is, that these imperfect Men, that is to say, those that are not baptized, may ob∣tain Forgiveness of their Sin; whereas those that have once tasted the Celestial Gifts, and once are touched, have no more excuse, nor means to avoid Punishment.

St. Athanasius afterwards confutes this Explication, which appears to be very agreeable to the Opinion of Novatian, and gives another Interpretation, which is far more Natural.

ATHENOGENES.

TO Theognostus we may joyn the Martyr Athenogenes, who composed a Hymn, before he was cast into the Fire, wherein he speaks of the Trinity; as St. Basil assures us in the 29th Chap∣ter of his Book of the Holy Ghost.

DIONYSIUS Bishop of Rome.

DIONYSIUS Bishop of Rome, who presided in that See, from the Year 258. to the Year 270. writ a Letter against the Sabellians, a Fragment whereof remains still preserved by St. Atha∣nasius in his Book concerning the Decision of the Council of Nice; in which, discoursing against the Sabellians, he falls upon the contrary Doctrine, that was afterwards maintained by the Arians. He proves that the Word was not Created, but Begotten of the Father from all Eternity, and distinctly ex∣plains the Mystery of the Trinity. This Fragment is plainly taken out of a Letter written by Dionysius, in the Name of the Roman Synod, at the time when Dionysius of Alexandria was accused of falling in∣to the opposite Errour to that of the Sabellians.

MALCHION.

MALCHION, a very Eloquent Man, was, after he had taught the prophane Sciences with a great deal of Reputation in the City of Antioch, ordained Presbyter of that Church, for the Purity of his Faith and his Doctrine. He had a famous Dispute against Paulus Samosatenus in the Second Council of Antioch, held in the Year 270. in which, after he had clearly discovered the Errours which that Heretick endeavoured to conceal, he prevailed with the Council to condemn him. This Conference was taken in Writing by some Notaries, and was extant not only in the time of Euse∣bius and St. Jerome, who mention it, but also in the time of Leontius; that is to say, towards the end

of the Sixth Century: He speaks of it in his First Book against the Nestorians, and recites some Frag∣ments of it in the Third Book. However it is not certain that they are genuine, any more than the * 1.503 Fragments of another Letter of the Council of Antioch, mentioned by Eusebius. St. Jerome tells us, that he was likewise Author of a Letter written in the Name of that Council, against Paulus Samosatenus, and spoken of by Eusebius in the Seventh Book of his History, Chap. 30.

ARCHELAUS.

ARCHELAUS Bishop of Mesopotamia, published a Dispute in the Syriack Language, which he had with a Heretick of the Manichean Party, that came out of Persia; and St. Jerome assures us, that in his time it was Translated into Greek. This Author flourished in the time of the Emperour Probus. There is a Fragment of this Writing in the Sixth Catechetick Lecture of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. [This Dispute it self, translated into Latin by an Ancient Hand, was published by Valesius at the end of his Edition of Socrates and Sozomen at Paris, 1668. It is imperfect. Bigotius found it in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and communicated it to Valesius.]

ANATOLIUS.

ABout the same time, under the same Emperour, and under Carus his Successor, Anatolius also flou∣rish'd, born at Alexandria, and Bishop of Lacdicea in Syria; a Man of profound Learning, very well skilled in Arithmetick, Geometry, Physick, Astronomy, Grammar, and Rhetorick. Eusebius and St. Jerome assure us, that the greatness of his Spirit, the force of his Eloquence, and the depth of his Knowledge, abundantly appear in a Book of his concerning Easter; and that he show'd the Dexterity of his Address and Politicks in the Siege of Alexandria, which by his Prudent Counsels he saved from an entire Destruction that threatned it. Eusebius in the last Chapter of his Seventh Book, has preserved a Fragment of this Treatise about Easter, concerning the time wherein that Festival is to be celebrated. This same Author likewise composed Ten Books of Arithmetick, and left behind him several Monu∣ments of his Learning and Exactness; particularly in those things that concerned the Holy Scriptures.

Aegidius Bucherius hath given us an entire Version of the Treatise about Easter by Anatolius, which he Copied out of an ancient Manuscript. He pretends that it was done by Ruffinus, and that it answers the Treatise of Anatolius. And indeed, the Fragment cited by Eusebius, is to be found intirely in Latin, and the Passages cited by Bede are there word for word. But it would be no strange thing, for an Im∣postor to insert a Passage mentioned by Eusebius, that was so easie to find, and for this Work to be forged since Bede's time. Though I am of Opinion, That this Canon is ancient, though full of Errours, and perhaps a little corrupted by him that Translated it.

VICTORINUS.

VICTORINUS Bishop of Passaw a 1.504, a City of the ancient Pannonia, situate upon the Drave in Styria, and not of Poictiers in France, passeth for a very indifferent Author. b 1.505 St. Jerome says of him, That he did not understand Latin so well as Greek; that the Style of his Works

is simple and mean, though the Sence is very high; that he had no Notion of Style, though he under∣stood * 1.506 the Holy Scriptures very well; that he had no Learning, but that he had great Inclinations that way. His Works, whereof St. Jerome has composed a Catalogue, are, besides a Treatise against all Heresies, some Commentaries upon Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah; and as far as the Vision of the Four-footed Beasts in in Ezechiel; Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, and the c 1.507 Revelations.

We have in the Bibliotheca Patrum, a Commentary upon the Apocalypse by Victorinus, with a Preface attributed to St. Jerome. It is said in this Preface, That Victorinus was of the same Opinion with Pa∣pias and Nepos, touching the Reign of the Thousand Years; and the very same thing is likewise ob∣served by St. Jerome in his Catalogue: Nevertheless we find the contrary in this Commentary, and that Opinion seems to be plainly rejected there, as belonging to the Heretick Cerinthus. There is also mentioned in this Book an Epitome of Theodorus, who reckoned Twenty Four Books of the Old Testa∣ment. Now this Theodorus having lived under Justinian, we must of necessity conclude, that the Au∣thor of this Commentary lived since that time; however, 'tis far more probable that this Citation of Theodorus has been added since, because the Author of this Commentary lived before Justinian's Age. For he believed with the Ancients, that the Souls of Men should not be happy till after the Day of Judgment; and that Nero was Antichrist; which Opinions were no where maintained in Justinian's time.

Tis likewise very probable, that they have altered somewhat of what he says in his Com∣mentary concerning the Reign of the Thousand Years;

besides that, he formally rejects only the Er∣rour of Cerinthus, who believed no other Beatitude but that of a Temporal Reign.

I don't believe, says he, that the Reign of the Thousand Years will be at the end of the Judgment; or if there is one, we ought to believe that it ends after the Thousand Years are compleated.

Thus we cannot be cer∣tainly assured, that this Commentary does not belong to Victorinus; on the contrary, 'tis somewhat probable that it is his.

PIERIUS.

PIERIUS, a Priest and Catechist of Alexandria, Instructed the People of that Church under the Empire of Carus and Dioclesian, at the same time when Theonas was Bishop of that place. He composed several sorts of Treatises, that were extant in St. Jerome's time, with so much Eloquence, that he was called the young Origen. It is certain, he lived a very austere Life, and em∣braced a voluntary Poverty. He was excellently well skilled in Logick and Rhetorick. The Persecu∣tion being ended, he came to Rome, where he continued a considerable time. He wrote a great Ho∣mily upon Hosea, which he recited on Easter-Eve, wherein he takes notice, that in his time on Easter-Eve the People tarried in the Church till after Midnight. Photius tells us, That in this Homily he discoursed about the Cherubims that Moses placed over the Ark. The same Author read another Work composed by Pierius, but he does not acquaint us with the Title of it, that contained a dozen Volumes; in which, according to the Testimony of Photius, he has some particular Opinions different from those of the Church. His Doctrine upon the Trinity is Orthodox concerning the Persons of the Father and the Son, though he uses the Word Substance and Nature to signify a Person. But his manner of speak∣ing about the Holy Ghost is dangerous, and scarce Orthodox; because he says, That the Glory of the Latter is less than the Glory of the Father and the Son. Photius moreover adds, That he wrote a Book upon St. Luke's Gospel; in which he proves, That the Dis-respect shown to Images, falls back upon that which they represent. As for his Style, he tells us, It is clear, smooth and easie; that it is by no means elaborate, but flows equally and gently, as in Discourses composed Extempore; and that it is full of Enthymems.

METHODIUS.

METHODIUS, Bishop of Olympus or a 1.508 Patara in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre in Palae∣stine, (who suffered Martyrdom at Chalcis, a City of Greece, towards the end of Dioclesian's Persecution in the Year 302. or 303.) composed in a clear elaborate Style, a large Work against Porphyrius the Philosopher; an excellent Treatise about the Resurrection against Origen; ano∣ther about the Pythonyssa against the same; a Book Entituled, The Banquet of Virgins; one about Free-Will;

Commentaries upon Genesis and the Canticles, and several other Pieces that were extant in St. Je∣rome's * 1.509 time. At present, besides The Banquet of Virgins that was published entire not long ago by Possinus a Jesuit, we have several considerable Fragments of this Author cited by St. Epiphanius and Photius, and others, found in Manuscripts, and collected together by Father Combesis, who has Printed them, together with the Works of Amphilochius and Andreas Cretensis. But afterwards Possinus found The Banquet of Virgins entire in a Manuscript belonging to the Vatican Library, and Translated it into Latin, and sent it into France, where it was Printed in the Year 1657. Revised and Corrected by ano∣ther Manuscript. We cannot doubt, that this is the true genuine Work of Methodius; as well because it carries all the Marks of Antiquity in it, that a Book can possibly have; as also because it contains Word for Word all the Passages that Photius has cited out of this Work of Methodius, and another place cited by St. Gregory Nyssen. 'Tis written by way of Dialogue, in which he introduces a Woman named Gregorium, who tells her Friend Eubulus all the Conversation that passed in a Meeting of Ten Virgins, which she learnt of Theopatra. It was composed by Methodius, in imitation of a cer∣tain Book, very much resembling it, written by Plato, and Entituled, The Banquet of Socrates. After that Gregorium and Eubulus have exchanged the usual Complements, and Gregorium has given a short Description of the Place, where these Ten Virgins were assembled; she feigns that Arete, in whose Gar∣den they were met, requests each of them to make a Discourse upon Virginity; which she repeats one after the other.

The First is that of Marcella, who enlarges very much upon the Greatness and Excellence of Vir∣ginity. She makes it appear how choice a thing Virginity is; and that it is a difficult thing to pre∣serve it amidst so many Thousand Temptations we meet with: That it is necessary to meditate inces∣santly upon the Holy Scripture, in order to keep it unspotted and undefiled: That Virginity was scarce so much as known under the ancient Law, when Men were permitted to Marry even their own Sisters, and to take several Wives: But that God by little and little has taught Men, in the first place to preserve their Chastity, and afterwards to embrace Virginity: That Jesus Christ came into the World to in∣struct them in this Virtue by the Influence of his own Example; that he is the Prince of Virgins, as well as the Prince of Pastors; that the Company of Virgins has the first place in his Kingdom, though they are the least in number: And this she justifies by a Passage out of the Revelations, Chap. the 14th.

Since this Conversation of Marcella might seem to throw some Dis-reputation upon the Sanctity of Marriage, Theophila proves in the second place, that Jesus Christ in making the great Excellencies of Virginity known to the World, did not design thereby to banish Marriage, and entirely abolish so Sa∣cred an Institution. She says, That the Ecstasie of Adam denotes and signifies the Passion of Marriage; that God is the Author of Generation, and that he forms the Infants that come into the World. Here Marcella interrupts the Series of her Discourse, and enquires of her, How it comes to pass, if Infants are conceived and born by the Will of God, that he permits the Children of Adulterers to come into the World; that these Children thrive, and are often more perfect in their Body and Mind, and also become better Christians than others: That nevertheless, Experience daily acquaints us with the truth of this Assertion; so that we ought to understand this Saying in the Scripture, The Children of Adulte∣terers shall be consumed by Fire, only of those that corrupt the Word of God. Theophila returns this An∣swer to the Obejction, That God is not the Author of Adulterers, though he forms the Infants that are born of such Copulations; and this she illustrates by the Example of a Man that makes Earthen Ves∣sels in a place enclosed with four Walls full of Holes, through which he is furnished with Clay, of which he makes his Work: Now if those that serve him are mistaken in taking one hole for another, and it so happen that his Work is not such as it ought to be, the fault would lie neither in the Workman himself, nor in the Clay, but in those that had made a wrong Application of the matter; That after the same manner, we ought not to cast the Sin of Adulterers either upon God that makes Men, or upon the Matter of which they are made, or upon the Power that is given to Men to beget Children, but upon the wicked Inclinations of those Persons that use these things in a dishonest manner; that eve∣ry thing in the World is really Good in it self, but becomes Ill through the ill use and management of it. She continues afterwards to prove, by the admirable Beauty and Harmony that so visibly appears in the Contexture of our Bodies, that God is the Author of them. She observes that all Infants, even those that are begotten in Adultery, have their tutelar Angels to guard them immediately after their Conception; that the Soul is in its Nature immortal; that it is not generated by our Parents, but pro∣ceeds from God who inspireth it. In short, after she has thus answered this Objection, she concludes, That it is permitted for Men to Marry, though Virginity is a more perfect State than Marriage.

The Third Discourse goes under the Name of Thalia, who applies the words of Adam to his Wife in Genesis, to our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, and his Church; and following the Opinion of the Apo∣stle, she adds, That the Word was the Wisdom of God; who existing before all Ages, communicated himself after a very particular manner to the first Man; but that Man having violated and transgressed

the Commandments of God, became Mortal and Corruptible; and that it was necessary for the Word to make himself Man, to deliver him from the Curse and Tyranny he had rendred himself obnoxious to, and save him from Corruption by his own Death and Resurrection. That it is upon this account, that the Son of God came into the World, to unite himself to the Church, as to his Spouse, which through this means became his Flesh and his Botie; that he died for her; that he purified her by Bap∣tism, and by his Holy Spirit; that these words, Increase and Multiply, are accomplished and fulfilled every day in the Church, which encreases in Greatness and Beauty by the Communication of the Word, and by the Union it maintains with him; that Catechumens are as it were Infants, that are as yet in their Mothers Belly, that being perfectly instructed, they are born through Baptism, and at last become perfect full grown Men; that we ought not therefore to abuse these Words, and employ them, to op∣pose Virginity, to which St. Paul exhorts the Fiathful, not allowing Marriage it self, and second Mar∣riages in particular, but as a Remedy for Incontinence; like one that should desire a Person that is Sick and Indisposed to eat on a Fast-day, and say to him, It were to be wished that you were able to East, as all of us have done to day, for you know eating is forbidden; but since you are sick, it is expedient for you to eat, that you may not die.

In the Fourth Discourse, that goes under the Name of Theopatra, it is maintained, That nothing is more efficacious than Virginity, to make a Man enter again into Paradise, and enjoy a blessed Immor∣tality.

In the Fifth, Thalusa endeavours to demonstrate, That the most excellent Gift we can present to God, and the most worthy of Him, is to embrace Virginity; and she gives several Cautions and Ad∣vertisments to Virgins how to preserve their Virginity without Spot or Blemish.

Agatha, that manages the Conference after Thalusa, undertakes to prove in the Sixth Discourse, that Virginity ••••ght to be accompanied with Vertue and good Works; and to this purpose she explains the Parable of the Ten Virgins.

Procilla afterwards begins the Seventh Discourse, wherein she shews the Excellency of Virginity; be∣cause of all Vertues, this is that which has the Honour to be the Spouse of Jesus Christ. She explains a a certain place out of the Sixth Chapter of the Canticles, ver. 7. and 8. There are threescore Queens, and fourscore Concubines, and Virgins without number. My dove, my undefiled is but one.

Thecla, assuming the Discourse after this, observes, That the Greek word that signifies Virginity, only by adding one Letter to it, denotes an Union with God, and a frequentation of Heavenly Things. She takes occasion from t•…•…ce to show. That Virginity elevates us up to Heaven, and makes us de∣spise the Vanity of things below; and having cited a place in the Revelations, Chap. 12. concerning a Woman that is there described, she explains it of the Church. In short, after she has drawn some Allegories from Numbers, she exhorts all Virgins to persevere in their Virginity, and to resist the At∣tacks of the Serpent; that is to say, the Temptations of the Devil. From thence she launches out into other matter, and shows that Men are free Agents, and that they are not necessitated to do good or ill by the Ins•…•…ences and Configurations of the Stars, de••iding the Effects that the Astrologers attribute to the Constellations because of their Names.

For, says she, if there was any such thing as fatal Ne∣cessity from the beginning of the World, it was ••o no purpose for God to place the Stars of Men, and the Stars of Beasts in order; and that if there was, not a necessity at that time, wherefore should God establish it, since the World was then in its full perfection, and in a time which they called the Golden Age? She afterwards demonstrates;

That if we were necessitated by the Fatality of our Nativity un∣der such and such a Constellation, it would follow, that God who is the Author of the Stars, and of their Motion and Disposition, would likewise be the Author of Sin and Iniquity. She adds, That Laws being contrary to things that are done by a fatal Necessity, it is impossible that these Laws should be made by mere Fatality.

For, says she, it is not to be supposed that this Fatality would destroy it self.

Now, if those that had a share in making these Laws, were not subject to this fatal Necessity, why should we not pass the very same Judgment upon others? Besides, if such a Fatality really took place, it would be Injustice either to recompence the Good, or punish the Bad; or rather, there would be neither Good nor Evil in the World, since every one would be constrained to Good or Evil. After∣wards to explain the Cause of Evil, she says, There are two contrary Motions in us; one of which is called the Concupiscence of the Flesh; the other, the Concupiscence of the Spirit; that This is the Original of all Good, and the Other the Cause of all Evil.

After this, Tysians taking up the Discourse, explains in the Ninth Discourse a place of Leviticus, V. 36. Chap. 23▪ where mention is made of the Feast of the Seventh Month; that is to say, the Fifteenth of September, which is the Scenopegia, or Feast of Tabernacles. She reprehends the Jews for stopping at the bare Letter of Scripture, without penetrating into the h••dden mysterious Sence; and for taking the Figures of things to come, as Marks of things that were already past. She instances in the Paschal Lamb, which they did not comprehend to be a Type of Jesus Christ, who at the Day of Judgment shall save Souls marked with his own Blood; That the Law was the Figure of the Gospel; That these Shadows and Representations are no more, but that we shall have a perfect Knowledge of all things when we shall be raised up from the Dead; That Man was created Immortal, but that his Sin causing him to incline towards the Earth, God made him Mortal, lest he should continue a Sinner everlast∣ingly; That for this reason he separated the Soul from the Body; that so the Sin, which is in the Body, being dead and destroyed, he might raise it up again immortal, and delivered from the tyranny of Sin; That we ought to adorn this Body, which may be called a Tabernacle, with Faith, with Charity, Ver∣tue, and particularly with Chastity; That those that live chastly in the state of Marriage, adorn it

in part, but not so perfectly as those that have made a Profession of Virginity; That those Persons who have thus adorned and set out the Tabernacle of their Bodies in this Life, shall enjoy after the Resur∣rection a Thousand Years of Repose and Felicity upon the Earth with Jesus Christ, that afterwards they shall follow him to Heaven; and that this is the promised Beatitude, in which there shall be no more Tabernacles; that is to say, in which our Bodies shall be changed, and become incorruptible, and Men shall be made like Angels.

Lastly, Domnina, to show the Excellency of Virginity, falls into a very obscure Allegory upon a place of Scripture taken out of the Book of Judges. After her Harangue is ended, Arete, assuming the Discourse, tells them, That to be truly a Virgin, it is not sufficient barely to preserve and keep Con∣tinence of Body, but that it is likewise necessary to purifie ones self from all Sensual Desires; That we actually dishonour and fully Virginity, when we abandon our selves to Pride, or permit a Spirit of Va∣nity to possess us, because we have preserved our Bodies chaste; That this is to do like the Pharisees, who made every thing appear clean without, while they were full of Impurities within; That we ought to be Virgins both in Body and Spirit, and that we must watch and labour incessantly, lest Idleness and Negligence give an open entrance to other Sins. After this Discourse, all of them Sing their Prayers, and several times repeat,

I preserve my self chaste for thee, O my Divine Spouse, and desire to walk before thee with a burning Lamp.

At last Gregoriam and Methodius, Surnamed Eubulus, who enter∣tained themselves with the Discourses of these Virgins, discuss this Question, viz. Who were the most perfect Virgins, either those that feel no Motions of Desire, or those that feel them, and though they are assaulted and tormented by them, yet heroically resist and extinguish them? Gregorium gave the preference to the first: But Methodius shews her by the Example of Mariners, Physicians, and Wrest∣lers, that those Virgins who preserve themselves chaste in the midst of those violent Agitations and Tempests that are excited by their Passions, who have the Art to cure the various Diseases of Concu∣piscence, and cannot only resist, but also defeat the disorderly Motions of the Flesh, deserve a great deal more than those that have no Appetites and Inclinations to struggle with.

This Dialogue is full of Allegories, and Citations out of Scripture explained in a mystical Sence; and the Doctrine contained in it is exceeding Orthodox. He does not condemn, or speak dishonoura∣bly of Marriage, even when he is setting out Virginity to the greatest Advantages; a Moderation sel∣dom to be found in the Ancients. Photius tells us, That this Book has been corrupted by the Here∣ticks; and that there are some Expressions in it, which the Arians use. And indeed he tells us in the Seventh Discourse, That the Son who is above all Creatures, made use of the Testimony of the Fa∣ther, who alone is greater than he. But if by reason of this single Expression, we must immediately cry out, that this Dialogue has been abused by the Arians, we must likewise say the same thing of the Gospel of St. John; and there is no greater difficulty in giving a good Sence to this Expression in Me∣thodius, than in the Gospel; and so much the rather, since in the same place, and indeed as often as he speaks of the WORD in this Dialogue, he says, That he was before all Ages: And towards the end of the following Discourse, which is the Eighth, explaining these Words of the Psalmist, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

We ought to observe, cries he, that he says, Thou art my Son; being willing to have it known that he had from all time the quality of the Son, that he will never cease to have it, and that he who was begotten, was, and ever will be the same. As for what concerns the following Passage, this day have I begotten thee; it is to show, that he who was before all Ages in Hea∣ven, was born in time for the good of the World. A little after he takes occasion to speak of the Hereticks, who have erred concerning the Trinity. Some of them, says he, as Sabellius, have erred concerning the Person of the Father, who maintained that it was the Almighty that suffered: Others concerning the Son, as Artemas and some others, that affirm, he was only a Man in outward appear∣ance: Others concerning the Holy Ghost, as the Ebionites, who pretend that the Prophets spoke of themselves: For I will not speak of Marchion, Valentinus, and Helcesaites.

These Words demonstrate, that we may very well defend Methodius from the Imputation of any Errour concerning the Trinity. I cannot spend any more time to observe, that he taught the Opinion of the Millenaries in this Trea∣tise, or to give an exact relation of his Doctrine, which may be learnt out of the Abridgment we have made of his Banquet of the Virgins. The Treatise of the Resurrection was written against Origen's Opinion, who believed that Men were not to be raised up again from the Dead in the Flesh. This Book also was composed in form of a Dialogue between Aglaophon, who maintained Origen's Assertion, and Proclus, and Methodius or Eubulus, who dispute against him. St. Epiphanius has cited a large Frag∣ment of it in his Account of the Heresie of Origen; and Father Cambesis has added some other Frag∣ments to it, taken out of a Manuscript of Sermondus. He first of all proves under the Person of Procius, Th••t Man was created Immortal, that Death was occasioned by his Sin, of which it is the Punish∣ment; That Sin was caused by the Envy of the Devil; and that the Devil himself, who was created in Righteousness like to the other Angels, fell through the Sin of Envy, and an inordinate Passion he had for Women; That our first Parents had a real Body and real Flesh before their Transgression; That the Fig-leaves wherewith they covered themselves, denote that after the Death of Man, Sin shall be en∣tirely rooted out of the Heart: For, though Mens Sins are blotted out by Baptism, yet nevertheless there remains a Root still, that shoots up young Branches in this Life: So that all we can do to hinder these Branches from spreading, is to root them up, and prune them often with the Pruning-knife of the Word of God. He tells us, that Man is like a cast Statue, which having been disfigured by some Accident, the Workman that made it, casts it anew before he erects it again; That after the same manner, God ••lmighty who made Man, was willing that his Work which was disfigured by Sin,

should be destroy'd by Death, that so he might re-establish him by the Resurrection; That it is a folly to imagine a Resurrection of the Soul, since the Soul does not die; That Air, Earth, Heaven and the World shall not be destroy'd at the Day of Judgment, but that they shall only be purged and renewed by the Fire of Heaven; That Men shall not change their Nature at the Resurrection, and that they shall not be transformed into Angels; but that they still have Body and Flesh, though immortal and incorruptible. All this is extracted from the words of Proclus. St. Epiphanius afterwards cites those of Methodius, who continues to refute Origen's Errour about the Resurrection, and who likewise endea∣vours to prove in the same place against the same Author, That the Body cannot pass the Chains and Prison of the Soul; That the Paradice where Adam lived was upon Earth; That Man does not con∣sist of the Soul alone, as Plato believed, but that the Body and Soul are the two parts of him; That 'tis Fabulous to say, that Souls were thrown headlong down from Heaven in their Bodies, or that they passed through Vertices of Elementary Fire, and through the Waters of the Firmament before they came to the Earth. And at last he makes several curious useful Remarks upon the Scriptural No∣tion of Flesh, and of the Sin that dwells in our Bodies, explaining at the same time several places of the Apostle. Photius has cited these Explications all along, and added besides, what the same Author has delivered about those Persons that were raised up to Life before Jesus Christ, about the Apparitions of the Dead, and the Parable of Dives and Lazarus; in which he concludes, that Souls keep the Form of their Bodies in another World, and are there punished and rewarded before the Day of Judgment. There still remains a certain Passage of it, which is supposed to belong to the same Work quoted by St. John Damascene, in his Third Oration concerning Images; wherein he says,

That Christians make Golden Images representing Angels for the Glory of God.

But I very much question whether this Passage belongs to Methodius; or if it does, it must be taken in another sence than that in which Saint John Damascene understood it; and that by Angels, Principalities and Powers, he means the Kings of the Earth, as the Words that immediately precede seem to intimate.

The Treatise of Free-Will was composed in Form of a Dialogue or Dispute between a Valentinian and a Catholick. The former affirms, That Matter which is Eternal, was the cause of Evil, or of Sin. On the other hand, the Orthodox Christian makes it appear, that there could not be two Eternal Principles; that if Matter were Eternal, yet Evil would not be Eternal, because the qualities of Mat∣ter could not be Eternal; that Matter is not the cause of Evil; and that God is not the cause of Evil, because Evil consists not in a real thing, but in the ill use that we make of our Liberty; that Man having been created with a Liberty either to obey, or not to obey the Commandments of God he sins, when using this Liberty the wrong way, he does things contrary to the Law of God.

These are the Works of Methodius, which St. Jerome mentions. Photius has made an Extract of a Treatise about created things, written by Methodius. In the First, he says, That these words of Je∣sus Christ, Cast not Pearl before Swine, ought not to be understood of Doctrine, but of Vertues; and that the meaning is not, that we must conceal Mysteries from the Infidels, but that we must not prophane the Christian Vertues; such as Chastity. Temperance and Justice, with the Pleasures of the World that are signified by the Swine. In the Second, he confutes those that thought the World had no beginning; an Opinion which he attributes to Origen. In the Third, he says, That the Church is so called, because it calls Men to fight against Pleasures. [In the Greek Ecclesia, which signifies a Church, or any Assembly of Men, comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to call; because the Publick Assemblies were con∣vened by publick Cryers, who called the People together.] In the Fourth, he says, That there were two Vertues or Powers that concurred to the Creation of the World; the Father that created it of no∣thing, and the Son that polished and compleated the Work of the Father. The Son, says he, who is the Almighty hand of the Father. In the Fifth he asserts, That Moses was the Author of the Book of Job; and he explains the first Words of the Book of Genesis, In principio, in the beginning, of the Wisdom of God. He observes, that God the Father begot the Word, or the Wisdom which was in Him before the Creation of the World; that this Wisdom being a Principle without Beginning, be∣came the Principle of all things; which is a Catholick way of speaking, and far remote from the Arian Opinion; though it does not seem to be altogether conformable to the Expressions of our Age. To conclude, In the last Fragment he cites a Passage of Origen, who would endeavour to prove by Alle∣gories, That the World existed long before the Six Days, that preceded the formation of Adam. Me∣thodius looks upon this as a trifling Opinion.

Theodoret, in his first Dialogue, cites a Passage taken out of a Sermon of Methodius concerning the Martyrs; where he says, that Martyrdom is so admirable, and so much to be desired, that Jesus Christ the Son of God would honour it himself; and that he who was equal to his Father, was willing to Crown Humane Nature, to which he himself was united with that excellent Gift.

The Sermon composed upon the Nativity of Jesus, and upon his being presented in the Temple, en∣tituled, Simeon and Ann, published by Pantinus in the Year 1598, and afterwards Printed by Father Combefis amongst the rest of the Works of Methodius, is neither cited by any of the Ancients, nor men∣tioned by Photius, though it is written in Methodius's Style. The Author of it endeavours to confute the Errours of Origen, and calls himself the Author of the Banquet of Virgins, in the beginning of his Discourse, which shews that it belongs to Methodius. Though we must own that he speaks so clearly of the Mysteries of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Divinity of the Word, whom he calls in several places Consubstantial to the Father, of the Hymn called the Trisagion, of the Virginity of Mary even after her Delivery, and of Original Sin, that it gives us some reason to doubt, whether some thing has not been since added to this Sermon. Besides, the Style of it is more swelling, and fuller of Epithets than that of Methodius.

Besides all this, Father Combefis upon the Authority of a Manuscript in the King's Library, has re∣stored to Methodius another Sermon upon Palm-Sunday, that was formerly Printed under the Name of * 1.510 St. Chrysostom, by Sir Henry Savil, upon the Authority of another Manuscript. It is certain, that it ap∣proaches nearer to the Style of Methodius than of St. Chrysostom; but he explains the Mystery of the Tri∣nity so clearly in one place, and opposes the Hereticks so very plainly, that there is some reason to be∣lieve, that either this place has been since added, or that this Homily was not written by Methodius. Father Combefis has likewise collected some other Fragments attributed to Methodius, cited by St. John Damascene, and by Nicetas, drawn out of his Books against Porphyrie. But besides, that we cannot intirely depend upon the Authority of these two Authors, who are not very exact, these Fragments have nothing considerable, and we think it not worth the while to say any thing more concerning them. We shall not take any notice of some Latin Prophecies about Antichrist attributed to Methodius, that are Printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum, since it is agreed on all hands that they are not his.

The Style of Methodius is Asiatick, that is to say, diffuse, swelling, and full of Epithets. His Ex∣pressions are Figurative, the turn of his Sentences affected, he is full of Comparisons, and far-fetched Allegories, his Thoughts are mysterious, and he says a few things in abundance of Words. Setting these things aside, his Doctrine is sound, and free from some Errours that were common to the An∣cients; particularly concerning the Virginity of Mary, concerning Original Sin, concerning Guardian Angels, and several other Points; as may be observed in the Abridgment that we have made of his Works.

PAMPHILUS.

PAMPHILIUS, a Presbyter of Caesarea in Palaestine, and a 1.511 Friend of Eusebius, suffered Mar∣tyrdom, during Maximine's Persecution. He wrote almost nothing himself, unless it be a few Letters to his Friends; but he took extraordinary pains to gather the b 1.512 Books of ancient Wri∣ters, and particularly those of Origen, for whom he had a particular Esteem. He transcribed several Volumes with his own hand, and amongst the rest, his Twenty Five Books of Commentaries upon the Prophets, and that very Transcript was to be seen in St. Jerome's time. Pamphilus when he was in Prison composed c 1.513 Five Books with Eusebius in defence of Origen, and Eusebius added a Sixth after his Death.

LUCIAN.

LUCIAN, a Presbyter of Antioch, applied himself vigorously to the Study of Scripture, and pub∣lished a new Edition of the Version a 1.514 of the Septuagint, which was afterwards called Lucian's Edition. He was a Man of great Eloquence, and wrote several small Treatises concerning Faith, and some Letters. Amongst others, he wrote one, when he was in Prison, addressed to a Christian of Antioch; the end of which Letter is preserved in the Chronicle of Alexandria, and is as follows:

All the Martyrs that are with me, Salute you. I send you word that Bishop Anthimus died a Martyr.

Lucian is accused to have been the first Author of the Arian Opinion: And indeed, all the Heads of that Party were his Disciples. He suffered Martyrdom at Nicomedia, under the Persecution b 1.515 of the Emperour Maximinus, and was Buried at Helenopolis, a City of Bythinia.

PHILEAS. * 1.516

PHILEAS, descended of a Rich and Powerful Family in the City of Thmuis in Aegypt, after ha∣ving passed through several Offices and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and acquired to himself the Reputation of an extraordinary Philosopher, was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the City were he lived, and had his Head cut off for the Faith of Jesus Christ, under the Emperour Maximinus. Before he suffered Martyrdom, he wrote a famous Letter to the Inhabitants of the City of Thmuis; in which he describes the Punish∣ments which the Christians were forced to endure in the City of Alexandria. He describes the Con∣stancy with which they supported themselves, and exhorts his Flock to keep up the Religion of Jesus Christ after his Death, which he foresaw would shortly happen. Eusebius in the Eighth Book of his History, Chapter the Tenth, has preserved a Fragment of this Eloquent Letter, which St. Jerome scru∣ples not to call a Book. He likewise tells us, that they had the Answers which he made to the Judge, who would have obliged him to offer Sacrifice. We have the Acts of his Martyrdom, that were Printed at 〈◊〉〈◊〉: But they are corrupt, as most of the rest are; and some things are inserted which are taken out of Eusebius and Ruffinus.

ZENO Bishop of Verona.

'Tis commonly believed, that there was one Zeno, Bishop of Verona, that suffered Martyrdom under the Empire of Galienus, and some Sermons are attributed to him, that were published by Guar••••us, Printed at Venice and Verona in the Years 1508. and 1586. and afterwards in∣serted into the Bibliothecae Pat••••m. But this Author being wholly unknown to all Antiquity, his Works have been absolutely rejected; nay, some have doubted, whether it be true, that there ever was a Bishop of Verona of that Name, that suffered Martyrdom under the Emperor Galienus. St. Gregory the Great is the first that speaks of Zeno, as a Martyr: but before him St. Ambrose, in a Letter written to Syagrius Bi∣shop of Verona, makes mention of one Zeno, the Predecessor of this Syagrius, who soems to have go∣vern'd the Church of Verena in the time of Constantius, or Julian the Apoltate. The Testimony of St. Ambrose has obliged those that positively maintain that there was one Zeno Bishop of Verona, a Martyr under, the Empire of Galienus; it has obliged them, I say, to distinguish between two Zeno's Bishop of Verona; one put to Death under Galienus, and another that lived in the time of Julian the Apostate. But it is better to own frankly, that 'tis a mistake to believe, that there was one Zeno Bishop of Verona in the time of Galienus. St. Gregory does indeed give the Name of Martyr to Zeno of Ve∣rona, but he does not tell us under what Emperour he suffered Martyrdom: And perhaps he might bestow that Title upon him, because he suffered some Persecution under Constantius, or Julian the Apo∣state. Be that as it will, Molanus observes, That heretofore in the Roman Martyrology, they placed him amongst the considerable Bishops that were Confessors: And Onuphrius Panvinus adds, That the Church of Verona anciently honoured him under that quality, and that Lippomanus Bishop of Verona, was the first that procured him the honour of a Martyr.

'Tis very certain, that the Sermons which we have under the Name of Zeno, cannot belong to him whom they suppose to have suffered Martyrdom under Galienus; for this Author in his Fifth Sermon speaks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ against the Hereticks that affirmed the Word to be God, but did not believe him to be Eternal as the Father, and supposed there was a time when He was not; which visibly demonstrates, That the Heresie of the Arians was then on foot. Neither can these Sermons belong to that Zeno of Verona, who lived under Constantius and Julian; because they are borrowed out of other Authors. There are Four Sermons of them that are a 1.517 intirely St. Basil's. All the Ho∣milies upon the Psalms are taken word for word out of the Commentaries b 1.518 of St. Hilary; which shews, That these Sermons attributed to Zeno of Verona, are a Collection of Sermons c 1.519 stoln out of se∣veral Authors, and heaped together without any Choice. Some are short, others are long; some are well written, and in an elevated Style; others ill, and in a mean pitiful one; some are clear, others obscure. In short, nothing can be imagined to be more unequal. In the Sermon of Continence, he reckons more than 400 Years since St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians, and yet in other Ho∣milies, he speaks of Temples, Martyrs and Carechumens, All these things set it past Dispute, that these Sermons attributed to Zeno of Verona, and unknown to all Antiquiry, are a Collection of Ser∣mons taken out of several Authors of different Times and different Countries, put together indiscreetly by some ignorant Copier.

The same Censure ought in all probability to be passed upon the 18 Sermons cited by Turrianus under the name of Eusebius of Alexandria. This Author is unknown to the Ancients; neither was there a Bishop of Alexandria d 1.520 of this Name, for the Three first Ages of the Church: Therefore these Sermons belong to a more modern Author.

ARNOBIUS.

THough Arnobius and Lactantius lived the better part of their time in the Fourth Century of * 1.521 of the Church, yet we shall nevertheless joyn them to the Authors of the Third, because they wrote with the same Spirit, and after the same manner; that is to say, they did not employ themselves in writing against the Heresies that role in the Fourth Age, but only in in confuting the Pa∣gans in Imitation of the Ancients.

Arnobius was Professor of Rhetorick at Sicca, a City of Numidia in Africk a 1.522 under the Emperour Dioclesian. He was first a Pagan; but as St. Jerome tells us in Euseb. Chron. being desirous to be con∣verted, that he might more easily prevail with the Bishops to admit him amongst the Faithful, he com∣posed, when he was but a Catechumen, Seven Eloquent Books against the Religion he had then left, and these Books were as Pledges or Hostages that procured for him the Favour of that Baptism he so earnestly sollicited. Now though it must be consessed, that he did not perfectly understand the Chri∣stian Religion when he wrote these Books, in which some Errours are to be sound, yet he confuted the Absurdities of Paganism with singular Dexterity, and vigorously defended the principal Articles of our Religion.

He begins his First Book with consuting that Popular Calumny, which the Pag ans so industriously advanced against the Christians, viz. That they were the Authors of all the Calamities and Miseries that afflicted the World. He shews, that this is a groundless and unreasonable Fancy, that there were Plagues, and Famines, and Wars before our Saviours appearance, and that nothing had been changed since his coming: That he was so far from being the Author of their Miseries, that on the contrary, he brought abundance of Good unto the World; That Miseries proceed from Natural Causes, and that it often happens, that those things which in the common acceptation of Mankind pass for Misfortunes, don't prove so in effect; That if the Christians were the Cause of these Calamities, the World would have had no Interval without them ever since the appearance of Jesus Christ; That if the Pagans De∣ities sent these Miseries to Men for the Punishment of the Christians, they were unjust as well as weak; That the Christians worship the true God, and apprehend no dangers from false ones; That they adore Jesus Christ, but don't consider him as a Man that suffered Death for his own Transgressions, but as a real true God, who took the Humane Nature upon him to manifest himself to the World, to teach Mankind the ways of Truth, and to accomplish all those things for which be appeared upon Earth; That he died, and afterwards was raised up from the Grave, to satisfie all Men that the Hopes of their Salvation were certain. He proves the Divinity of Jesus Christ by the Exemplary Holiness of his Life, by the Innocence of his Manners, by the great number of Miracles and Prodigies that were wought by him, and by others that had Commission from him, by the Signs that appear'd upon the Earth at his Death; and then he shews, that we cannot reasonably question the Truth of these things, because the Evangelists, who have delivered them in writing, were Persons of great Integrity and Simplicity; That there is no reason to imagine they were so Vain, or indeed so Mad, as to pretend they saw those things that they never did see; especially since they were so far from reaping any Advantages from such In∣ventions that they thereby exposed themselves to the Hatred of all the World.

In his Second Book, he demonstrates that Jesus Christ was wrongfully Persecuted, since he had done nothing to deserve the hatred of any one, since he was no Tyrant, and destroy'd no body, since he acquired no Riches for himself, and did no manner of Injustice to the meanest Person. He likewise shows, that the Pagans had no certain Principles whereby to judge which was the true or false Religi∣on; that they were very much in the wrong, for laughing at the Credulity of the Christians; since in the generality of things that have a relation to Humane Life, Men usually manage themselves by the be∣lief which they repose in particular Persons; That Jesus Christ merited a great deal more than all the Philosophers in the World, because of the Miracles which he wrought; That the Pagan Philosophers be∣lieved the same things that are received by the Christians; as for Instance, The Immortality of the Soul, the Resurrection of the Body, and Hell Fire. He takes occasion from thence to discourse of the Nature of Souls, he pretends that they are of a middle quality between a Spirit and a Body; that they are by Nature Mortal; but that God of his Goodness immortalizes the Souls of those who repose their Considence in him. He confutes Plato's Notions concerning the Soul's Immortality, and it's Ex∣cellency, Dignity, Exile or Imprisonment in the Body. He supposes that it is Corporeal and extraduce; That Man is but very little different from the Beasts; That his Soul is mortal by Nature, but that it becomes immortal by the Grace of God: Opinions unworthy of a Man that had been perfectly instructed in the true Religion. What he at the same time observes, that in the Matters of Religion we ought

not to indulge a fond Curiosity, not endeavour to penetrate into the Reasons of God Almighty's Con∣duct, nor judge of it by our own Light, is infinitely more worthy of a Christian,

Jesus Christ, says he, was God, and I ought to tell you so, though you are not willing to understand it, yet he is God and speaks unto us from God. He has commanded us not to perplex our selves with unprofitable Questions; let us therefore leave the Knowledge of these things to God, and not amuse our selves in a vain pursuit after them.

And yet he does not forget to answer those Questions that were ordinarily proposed by the Pagans concerning Jesus Christ. Now they often demanded the reason, why our Blessed Saviour, (since his Coming was so absolutely necessary for the Saving of Souls from Death) would suffer so long an Interval of time to pass before he came to deliver them. Arnobius replies,

Is it possible for Man to know after what manner God dealt with the Ancients? Who has told you that he never relieved them any other way? Do you know how long it is since Men have been upon the Earth, or in what place the Souls of the Ancients are reserved? Who has informed you that Jesus Christ did not deliver them by his coming? Forbear then to torment your selves about these things, and meddle not with those Questions which 'tis impossible for Humane Reason to resolve: Be perswa∣ded that God has shown Mercy to them; Jesus Christ perhaps had taught you how, and when, and after what manner it was done, if it would not have afforded matter to your Pride. But wherefore continued the Pagans, did not Jesus Christ deliver all Mankind? He invites, he calls upon all the World, says Arnobius; he rejects no body, he readily receives those that come to him; he only re∣quires that Men would desire and wish for him; but he constrains and forces no Man, for otherwise it would be Violence and not Grace. But are none but Christians delivered from Death? No, assu∣redly; for Jesus Christ alone has Power to effect it. But, say the Pagans, this is a new upstart Reli∣gion; and why should we quit that of our Ancestors for it? Why not, reply'd Arnobius, provided it is better? Did we never change our Ancient Customs? Did we never alter our old Laws? Is there any thing in the World which had not a beginning at first? Ought we to esteem a Religion for the An∣tiquity of it, or rather for the sake of the Divinity which we honour? Within less than Two Thou∣sand Years none of the Gods that are now worshipped by the Pagans, were in being, whereas God and his true Religion has been from all Ages. Jesus Christ had his Reasons why he appeared when he did, though they are unknown to us. But why does he suffer those that worship him to be Perse∣cuted? And why, replies Arnobius, do your Gods suffer you to be afflicted with Wars, with Pesti∣lence and Famine, &c. As for us, 'tis not to be admired that we suffer in this Life, for nothing is pro∣mised to us in this World: On the contrary, all the Evils and Calamities which we suffer here, make way only for our Deliverance.

In the Three following Books, Arnobius falls upon the Pagan Religion, and shows, that the Christi∣ans had very great reason to reject a way of Worship so very foolish, Extravagant and Impious.

In his Sixth and Seventh Books, he demonstrates that the Christians did very wisely not to Build Temples, or trouble themselves with the Pageantry of Statues, Images and Sacrifices, and that it is a ridiculous piece of Folly to imagine, that God dwells in Temples, that the Images are Gods, or that the Divinities are contained in them. Or lastly, That we honour the true God, when we Sacrifice Beasts, burn Incense, or pour out Wine in Adoration of him.

Thus we have considered the Subject of the Seven Books of Arnobius, that are written in a manner worthy of a Professor of Rhetorick. The turn of his Thoughts very much resembles that of an Ora∣tor, but his Style is a little African, that is to say, his Words harsh, ill-placed, unpolisht, and some∣times scarce Latin; and 'tis likewise evident that he was not perfectly acquainted with the Mysteries of our Religion. He attaques Paganism with a greater share of Skill and Vigour, than he defends Christianity, and discovers the Folly of That better than he proves the Truth of This. But we ought not to be surprized at it, for 'tis the ordinary Fate of all new Converts, who being as yet full of their former Religion, know the weakness and blind-side of it better than they understand the Proofs and Excellencies of that Perswasion which they have newly embraced. I will say nothing concerning the Latin Commentary upon the Psalms, that carries the Name of Arnobius, because it is a certain truth, in which all the Learned World agrees, that this Arnobius is a different Person from him of whom we have been speaking; that he is of a later Date, and lived after the Council of Chalcedon, since he mentions the Pelagians and Predestinarians.

The Books of the Senior Arnobius were first published by Faustus Sabaeus, and Printed at Rome by Theodorus Priscianensis in the Year 1542. out of a Manuscript belonging to the Vatican Library, but with abundance of Faults that were to be found in that Manuscript. Galenius, who afterwards set out another Edition of them at Basil, in 1546. and 1560. by Frobenius, took the liberty to Correct them upon his own bare Conjecture, and to insert his own Emendations into the Text. Thomasinus printed them at Paris 1570. Canterus Corrected the Edition of Gelenius, and was the first Man that wrote Annotations upon Arnobius: His Edition was Printed by Plantin at Antwerp 1582. in Octavo. Elmenhorstius published a larger Comment upon him, and reviewed his Seven Books out of an ancient Manuscript. They are likewise Printed with Heraldus's Notes, in the Year 1583, and 1603, at Paris 1605, and at Hamburgh 1610, Stewechius a Learned Man took pains also with the same Author, and Printed him at Doway 1634. in Octavo. Thysius afterward revised his Edition, and caused it to be Printed at Leyden by le Maire, with the Notes of several others, 1652. and 1657. in Quarto. Lastly, Priorius Printed the Books of Arnobius against the Gentiles, at the end of St. Cyprian's Works, at Paris by Dupuis in 1666.

LACTANTIUS.

LUcius Caelius a 1.523 Firmianus, Surnamed Lactantius, was b 1.524 Converted in his Youth to the Christian * 1.525 Religion: He Studied Rhetorick in Africk in the School of Arnobius, but far surpassed his Ma∣ster in Eloquence. Whilest he was there, he writ a Book, Intituled, Convivium, or The Banquet; which acquired him so great a Reputation in the World, that he was sent for to Nicomedia to teach Rhetorick there. But meeting with sew Scholars there, because it was a Grecian City, where they had no very great value for the Roman Eloquence; he gave himself altogether to the writing of Books. St. Jerome informs us, That he wrote a Poem in Hexameter Verse, wherein he gave a Description of his Voyage; and another Piece which he called, The Grammarian; but imagining, that he was obliged to employ his Learning and Time upon a better and higher Subject, he entred the Lists in behalf of Religion. The First Treatise, which he composed after this manner, was that about the Work of God; He afterwards undertook his Seven Books of Institutions, c 1.526 about the Year of our Lord 320, in which he strenuously defends the Christian Religion, and likewise Answers all those that had written against it. After he had finished them, he abridged them, and added the Book concerning the Anger of God to the rest.

He likewise wrote Two Books to Asclepiades, and Eight Books of Epistles; Four to Probus, Two to Severus, and Two to Demetrianus, but all these Books, that were extant in St. Jerome's time, are lost at present. We have only recovered one Small Treatise concerning Persecution mentioned by St. Jerome, which Baluzius has lately Published under the Title of De Mortibus Persecutoruns. He Promises several other Works of the same Author, as his Disputes against the Philosophers, against the Jews, and against the Hereticks; but there is no reason to believe that Lactantius ever composed these Pieces, since St. Jerome doth not mention them; at least, that they were contained in his Epistles.

Constantine afterwards took him to be Tutor to his Son Crispus, to instruct him in all manner of Learning. In the midst of all these Honours he was so very Poor that he often wanted Necessaries, being very far from making any pursuits after Pleasure. This is all that we know of the History of this great and excellent Person, but even this very Circumstance alone, as we find it related in Eusebius's Chronicon, may pass for an extraordinary and magnificent Commendation of him, and ought to inspire us with no mean Idea of his Piety. For he must certainly have been a very Vertuous Man, that could live poorly in a Court, that could neglect the Care even of Necessary things in the midst of Plenty and Abundance, and had not the least taste of Pleasures, when he resided amongst Persons that were overwhelmed in them.

We are now to consider the Subject of the Seven Books of Lactantius, which besides the general Title of Divine Institutions, have each of them a particular Inscription, that acquaints us with the Matter whereof it Treats. The First is Intituled, De falsa Religione, of false Religion; The Second, De Origine Erroris, of the Original of Errour. The design of Lactantius in these Two Books is to demonstrate the falsity of the Pagan Religion. In the first, after he has informed his Reader of the Reasons that moved him to undertake such a Work, and has made his Addresses to the Empe∣rour Constantine, he shows that there is a Providence in the World, and that it is God who Rules and Governs it. He particularly enlarges upon this Second Proposition, and makes it evident by several Arguments, by the Authority of the Prophets that have Established it, and by the joint-Testimonies of the Poets, of the Philosophers, of Mercurius Trismegistus, of the Sybils, and the Oracle of Apollo, and there is only one God that Governs the World: And lastly, towards the latter Part of this Book, he demonstrates the Falsity of the Pagan Religion, by showing that the Gods to whom they paid their Adoration, were Mortal Men; and not only so but for the most part wicked and profligate Wretches. In the Second Book he goes on to confute the Pagan Religion, and directs his Discourse chiefly against the Idols and Representations of their Deities; and plainly proves, that it is the highest Degree of Madness and Stupidity to pay Adorations to them as Divine Beings. After this, coming to assign Reasons for the Prodigies and Oracles, which the Pagans at∣tributed to their Idols, he rises as high as the Creation of the World, to furnish himself with a fit occasion of discoursing about the Nature of Daemons, to whom he ascribes all those wonderful miraculous Effects. Lastly, he shews, That the principal Cause of the Errours and Malice of Men is owing to the perpetual Temptations and Snares of the Devil; as also to the abandoning of Cham and his Posterity.

The Third Book is Intituled, De falsa Sapientia, Of false Wisdom; because it is chiefly levelled at the Pagan Philosophers, the Vanity of whose Philosophy he endeavours to expose and discover: From hence he draws this Conclusion, That the only Wisdom of Man is to know and worship God.

The Fourth is concerning true Wisdom; and 'tis in this Book chiefly that he lays open the Doctrine of the Christians. In the beginning of the Book he shows, That the Philosophers were not able to find out the true Wisdom, because they never searched after it amongst the Jews, and because it is inseparable from the Worship and Knowledge of the true God. He afterwards explains the Do∣ctrine of the Christians with relation to Jesus Christ; and evidently proves, That the Pagans themselves acknowledged that he was the Word and Wisdom of God existing before the World; That this Word was begotten of God after an incomprehensible manner; That he descended from Heaven, and was born of a Virgin, according to the Predictions of the Prophets, that the Gentiles might know the true God. He then gives an Account of the Life, the Miracles, and Death of Jesus Christ; and shows, That it was necessary for him to undergo the infamous Punish∣ment of the Cross.

He afterwards demonstrates, That though the Christians do acknowledge that the Son is God, as well as the Father, yet they worship but one God; That the Father and Son are one Spirit, and one Substance, and one God; which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illustrates and explains by the Comparisons of a Fountain and its Stream, of the Sun and its Rays, &c.

Towards the End, he declaims in general against Heresies; and tells us, That the Catholick Church only has retained the true worship of God; That it is the Sourse of Truth, the Habitation of Faith, the Temple of God; That those Men who never enter into it, or who depart from it, are out of hopes of obtaining Everlasting Salvation; That no Man ought to flatter himself, whilest he con∣tinues stedfast in his Obstinacy, since his Eternal welfare is concerned in the Matter, which he will be in danger of losing, unless he takes particular Care; That though all the Sects of Hereticks pre∣tend and boast to be the Church, yet there is but one properly so called, which heals the Wounds of Man by the wholsome Remedies of Confession and Repentance.

In the Fifth Book, that treats of Justice, He shews that the Pagans have no such thing as true Justice; That 'tis impossible to find it any where but in the Christian Religion; That it is a great Injustice to p•…•…secute the Christians, because of their Persuasion; and that though they were in an Errour, yet their Adversaries ought to recover them out of it, by the force of Reason and not of Punishments; That we cannot, and that we ought not to constrain Men to be of any Religion; which is a thing not to be defended by Killing of others, but by Dying for it our selves; not by Cruelty but Patience; That that the Sacrifices which are extorted from Men by Violence, neither sig∣nifie any thing to those that offer them, nor to those that cause them to be offered, nor to the Gods themselves; That 'tis a surprizing thing that the Pagans could suffer the Superstitions of the Egypti∣ans, and the Atheism of the Philosophers, and yet should bear such an incurable hatred to the Reli∣gion of Jesus Christ: In short, That though God sometimes permits Truth and Justice to be persecuted; yet he never fails at last to punish Persecutors with the utmost Severity.

The Sixth Book treats of the true worship of God. He distinguisheth between Two sorts of Worship, True, and False; and Two sorts of Ways, One that leads to Hell, and the Other that leads to Heaven. He tells us, That this last is a difficult Way, that we must pass through Po∣verty, Ignorance, and a long Series of Sufferings before we can arrive at Virtue; That the Philo∣sophers search'd after it to no purpose, since they neither knew what was Good, or what was Evil; having no Knowledge of God, who was the Author of Good, nor of the Devil who is the Author of Evil; That the Law of God is made clear and manifest to us; That this Law contains two Prin∣cipal Heads; The First of Piety; The Second of Humanity. That Piety consists in worshipping God, and that Humanity which is also called Mercy and Charity, consists in our mutually as∣sisting one another to our utmost Endeavours, since we are descended from the same Father; That if we would acquit our selves of this Duty, we ought to bestow Alms, to relieve the Sick and Necessitous, to protect Orphans and Widows, to redeem Captives, and bury the Dead; and that the Apprehension of becoming poor, ought not to hinder us from giving considerable Alms, because they blot out and efface our Sins.

He afterwards discourses about the Passions, and demonstrates, contrary to the Sentiments of the Philosophers, That Mercy or Compassion is not a Vice, but a Virtue; and that Fear and Love, which are Vices when they carry a Man to Earthly things, are Vertues when they move him towards Hea∣ven. From hence, he proceeds to the Precepts of Justice that are less general, such as are the fol∣lowing ones; Not to Lye, not to be guilty of Usury, not to exact Gifts from the Poor, not to re∣venge our selves of our Enemies, to speak well of those that revile us, to moderate our Passions, and to refrain from the pursuit of Sensual Pleasures. After he has thus show the way of Justice, he says, That if it should happen that a Man should forsake this way by falling into some Sin; yet he ought not to despair, but turn away from his Evil Practices, and satisfie God, who knows our secret Thoughts. In one word, That the Sacrifice, which we are to present, ought to be Spiri∣tual, and that we ought to offer him the Purity of our Hearts, and the Praises due to his Di∣vinity.

The Last Book of his Institutions treats about Happiness, and a happy Life. He shows, that this supposes the Immortality of the Soul, which he demonstrates by several Arguments; and likewise that thi•…•… Mortal Life can never be Happy, unless we take care to preserve Justice. He afterwards discourseth of the End of the World, which he imagines must happen Six Thousand Years after

its Creation, d 1.527 and of the Signs that shall precede it, amongst which he reckons the Destruction of the Roman Empire, and of the last Judgment; wherein he tells us, God shall, as it were, weigh both Good and Evil; and that those who have committed more Evil than Good, shall be condem∣ned to Everlasting Punishment; That on the contrary, those who are altogether Just, shall not in the least manner feel the Divine Fire; but that those who are in a middle condition, shall be examined by it, and so purified from their Sins; That after this Solemn Trial is over, Jesus Christ shall Reign a Thousand Years upon Earth with the Just, and when that Course of Time is finished, the World shall be renewed, all Mankind shall be raised again, and God shall make the Just like to Angels, that they may be in his Presence, and serve him during a happy Eternity; but that he will throw the Wicked head-long into Everlasting Fire. He concludes all, with exhorting Mankind to be Converted and Repent while they have an Opportunity of so doing; that so they may put themselves in a Condition of fearing nothing at that Great and Terrible Day.

We cannot carry any thing along with us, says he, but the Innocence of our Lives. Those only shall appear rich before God, that bring along with them, if I may use the Expression, the Vertues of Mercy, of Pa∣tience, of Charity, and of Faith. This is the Inheritance which cannot be ravished from us, and which we cannot transmit to any one besides: And who are they that desire to acquire these Blessings? Let them that are Hungry come to the Celestial Bread of the Word of God, that they may be everlastingly satisfied. Let them that are Thirsty come to quench their Thirst with the Water of this Heavenly Fountain; Let no Man ground his hopes upon his Riches, or his Power; for these things are not able to make us happy for ever; but let us bind our selves to the observation of Ju∣stice, which will accompany us even to God's Tribunal, where we shall certainly receive the recom∣pence, which he has promised us.

The Epitome or entire Abridgment of these Seven Books composed by Lactantius himself, is lost: what is extant, begins at the End of the Fifth Book, the rest was lost in St. Jerome's time. This Abridgment contained the very same things with the Books themselves, only more succinctly treated, and thrown into a narrower compass.

In the Book of God's Anger, Lactantius endeavours to prove, that God is capable of Anger, as well as of Mercy and Compassion.

In the Book of the Work of God, he establisheth Providence by demonstrating the Excellence of his Principal Work, which is Man; for which Reason, he makes an Elegant Description of all the Parts of his Body, and the Proprieties or Faculties of his Soul.

The Book of Persecution, or rather of the Deaths of the Persecutors, lately published by Baluzins, and quoted by St. Jerome, was writ immediately after the end of that Persecution, which was begun in the Year 303, under Dioclesian, and ended 313, by the Death of Maximinus, when Licinius and Constantine were Masters of the Empire. 'Tis written to a Confessor, whose Name was Donatus, who suffered several times courageously for the Christian Religion during that Persecution. The Sub∣ject which Lactantius proposes to himself in this Treatise, is to show, That the Emperours who per∣secuted the Christians, died all miserably. He there describes and relates the several Persecutions which the Church suffered; and likewise the exemplary Punishments which God deservedly inflicted upon these persecuting Tyrants. After he has in a few Words briefly run over the Sufferings of the Church under the Emperours Nero, Domitian, Decius, Valerian, and Aurelian, and given an account of the Tragical Deaths of these bloody Princes; he enlarges more copiously upon the following Per∣secution. He gives a particular Account of the History of Dioclesian, Maximian, Galerius, Severus, Maxentius, and Maximinus, and tells us how they came to be Emperours, and what was the occa∣sion of the Divisions, and Wars that were raised between them. He represents in lively colours the horrid Cruelties which they exercised upon the poor Christians, and how by the visible Chastise∣ment of God Almighty, they came to a lamentable End. This small Treatise is writ with a great deal of Flame and Elegance, and is exactly agreeable in the Historical Part to the Revolution of the Roman State under these Emperours. We find several Matters of Fact related there, which were un∣known to us before, and many other Passages are illustrated, and set in a better light. He there dis∣covers the Policy and Designs of all these Emperour; And lastly, makes it visibly appear, that the Hand of God was upon them to punish them for their Cruelty and ill Usage of the Christian Profes∣sors. There are few things in this Book that relate to the Doctrine of the Christians, but he seems to take notice, that St. Peter came not to Rome till the Beginning of Nero's Reign: And he like∣wise tells us, That as the Emperour Maximinus was offering Sacrifice, one of his Officers made the Sign of the Cross, and thereupon to their great trouble, the Daemons disappeared.

Besides these Works, whereof we have already discoursed, there are Three Poems attributed to La∣ctantius, which are not mentioned by St. Jerome, nor are to be found in the ancient Manuscripts; and therefore in all probability they are none of his.

The First, is a Poem concerning the History of the Phoenix, but the Author of this Piece was cer∣tainly no Christian but a Pagan; for he not only describes the Deluge like a Heathen, and contrary to Moses's Account, but he also speaks of Phoebus; as if he owned and acknowledged him for a God. The Second Poem concerning Easter, is addressed to one Felix a Bishop, and was composed by a Chri∣stian Author, who lived after Lactantius; 'tis attributed to Venantius Fortunatus, upon the Testimo∣ny and Authority of some Manuscripts in the Vatican Library. The Third is about the Passion of Jesus Christ, but is not to be found in any ancient Manuscript of Lactantius; besides, it does not in the

least come up to the Purity and Eloquence of his Stile, and besides he mentions the Adoration of the Cross. There are likewise some Arguments upon Ovid's Metamorphosis, and Notes upon the Thebais of Statius, that some Persons have attributed to Lactantius, but they really belong to Lactantius Placi∣dius, a Grammatian. They are quoted by Boetius and Sedulius.

Lactantius is the most Eloquent of all the Ecclesiastick Authors that wrote in Latin; His Stile is Pure, Equal and Natural; in a word, it is extremely like Cicero's, and he justly deserves the Name of the Christian Cicero, not only for the cleanness and purity of his Language; but also for the turn of his Phrase, and his Way of Writing, which is so conformable to that of Tully, that the most accu∣rate Criticks have been troubled to find out any difference between them: Nay, there have been some Persons in the World, as we are informed by e 1.528 Picus Mirandula, who made no difficulty at all of preferring his Stile to Cicero's.

Be that as it will, we are very certain that Lactantius abundantly surpasseth Cicero in his Thoughts, because the Matter of that Religion, which he so handsomly defends, does infinitely excel the Maxims and Doctrine of the Philosophers. He confutes Paganism with all the Ardour and Spirit imaginable, and he likewise solidly establishes the Christian Religion. He discourses of God after a very sublime ex∣alted manner; He explains the Divinity of the Word, and the Mystery of the Incarnation in an Or∣thodox Way; He describes the Creation of the World, and the Day of Judgment, by as lively and solemn a representation as any Body have ever yet used; but at the same time it must be acknow∣ledged, that he has sometimes inserted false, uncertain and fabulous things into his Discourses. He is full of admirable Precepts of Morality; he lays down Descriptions of all the Vertues clearly and per∣spicuously, and with an invincible Eloquence exhorts Mankind to the Practice of them; he shows them the way of Justice, and deterrs them from pursuing the Paths of Iniquity; he teaches them to honour God with a true sincere Adoration, and to be throughly Penitent for their Sins. We ought however to own that he has handled Theology after a very Philosophical manner; but that he did not examine all our Mysteries to the bottom, and that he has committed several Mistakes.

Pope Damasus writing to St. Jerome, is pleas'd to say, That he took no great pleasure in reading Lactantius's Books; because he frequently turned over several Pages, where he discourseth of things that have no manner of Relation to our Religion.

St. Jerome passes this Judgment of him, That he was better able to destroy and confute the Er∣rours of the Gentiles; than to maintain the Doctrine of the Christians; He is accused of doubting whether the Holy Ghost was the Third Person, and to have sometimes confounded him with the Son, and sometimes with the Father; but it may be alledged in his defence, That he meant nothing else, but that the Name of the Spirit in Scripture, is common to the Father and Son. But whatever the Matter is, we find no Footsteps of this Errour in any of his Works that are now remaining, though in some places he takes occasion to speak of the Holy Ghost. He seems to have been of Opi∣nion, That the Word was generated in time; but it is an easie matter to give a Catholick sence to that Expression, as we have seen it done to others, and we may be with Justice allow'd to do so, since he plainly establishes the Divinity of the Word in that very place. His Opinion concerning Angels, that being sent to guard and protect Men, they were afterward seduced by the Temptation of the Devil, and that falling in Love with Women, they begot Terrestrial Daemons upon them; as it is properly peculiar to him, so it is an erroneous Imagination without any Grounds to support it. What he says about the End of the World, The Reign of a Thousand Years, The Fire of Judg∣ment which will prove Men that have been Sinners, is common to him with divers other Authors; as also what he delivers about the state of Souls after Death, being kept in a Common Prison in expe∣ctation of the Day of Jugment, pretending that God created them all before the Creation of the World. I take no notice of several other Errors of less Consequence, and some harsh Expressions, which may be f 1.529 interpreted in a favourable sence.

The Works of this Author have been Printed often. The First Edition that appeared, was at Rome 1468. in Folio, by Conra••us Leweynheim. The Second at Rome 1470. was Revised by an Ita∣lian

Bishop. The Third was at Venice 1472, and it was afterwards Printed in the same City in the Years 1483. 1490. 1493. By Bennalius in 1509. 1511. 1515. By Mauritius in 1521. and 1535. At Paris by Petitus in 1509.

At Rome in 1574. in 1583. and 1650. At Florence in 1513. At Basil in 1521. 1523. 1546. and 1563. Twice in 1556. At Lyons in 1532. 1540. At Antwerp by Plantin in 1539. 1582. and in 1570. 1587. and in 1553. 1556. At Genev•••• in 1613. At Leyden in 1662. At Amsterdam in 1652.

Erasmus, Thomasius, Isaeus, Barthius, Thisius, Thaddensis, Galaeus, have wrote Notes upon this Au∣thor, that are joined together in this last Edition.

The last Edition is that which was Printed at Amsterdam, with the Commentaries of several Authors. I have been assured by a very Learned Man, That it is not only far from being the best, but that it is one of the worst Editions that ever came out of this Author.

[Since the Edition of Amsterdam, Dr. Spark set out an Edition of Lactantius at Oxon, to which he annexed his Book De mortibus Persecutorum, with Notes of his own, and a Dissertation of Mr. Dod∣well's De Ripa Striga; to explain a difficult Passage in that little Book. Before this Edition came out, it was Printed by it self at Oxon in 12^o. in the Year 1680. Corrected in many places by the Bishops of Oxford and St. Asaph, and by Dr. Isaac Vossius, who endeavoured to supply the Lacunae, which were in Baluzius's Manuscript Copy, from whence these Editions were taken. The Cambridge Edition 1685. in Octavo, of this little Book was taken from these. Since it was Published again by it self at Abo, with some Notes of Cuperus at the End, by Toinardus.]

COMMODIANUS.

HERE are Two Authors of the Fourth Century, whose Works have the same Character and * 1.530 Genius with those that were composed by the Writers of the Three first Centuries.

The First is called Commodianus: He is no where mentioned by the Ancients; but in reading his Poetry, 'tis an easie matter to see that it is not Supposititious. Gelasius places his Books amongst those which he calls Apochryphal, because the Millenary Opinion is here maintain'd, and Gennadius speaks of this Author in the following Words.

Commodianus giving up himself to the Study of Humane Learning, read also the Books of the Christians. This gave him a favourable Opportunity of embracing the Faith. Being now become a Christian, and desirous to offer to Jesus Christ the Author of his Salvation a Present befitting a Man of Learning, he wrote a Treatise against the Pa∣gans in Verse, which is composed in a middle Stile, neither Verse, nor Prose: And because he had but slightly turned over our Authors, he was able to confute the Pagan Religion with more ease, than to establish that of the Christians. Hence it is that he speaks of the Divine Recompences af∣ter a gross manner, following in this the Opinion of Tertullian, Lactantius and Papias. But his Morals are Excellent, and he persu••des Men to embrace a voluntary Poverty.

This is the Opinion of Gennadius concerning this Author, who lived in the Beginning of the Fourth Age, in the time of Pope Sylvester a 1.531. He calls himself Commodianus b 1.532, and by way of Allusion Gazaeus c 1.533, and gives himself the Title of the Beggar of Jesus Christ. He tells us, That he was once engaged in the Errors of the Heathens; but that he was converted by reading the Law of the Christians. His Work is entituled, Instructions; and is composed after the Fashion of Verse: I say after the Fashion of Verse, because he neither observes Measure, nor Cadence in it; but only takes care that every Line shall comprise a fini∣shed sence, and shall begin with an Acrostick, in such manner, that all the Letters of the Title of every Strophe are to be found one after another at the beginning of each Verse; and thus by taking all the first Letters of the Verse, we find the entire Title.

His Stile is harsh, his Words barbarous, and his Thoughts are seldom elevated. The Author ap∣pears to have been a Good Man, very simple, very humble, very charitable, thoroughly affected with the love of Jesus Christ, zealous for his Religion, austere in his Morals, an enemy to Vice, far re∣moved from the Pleasures of the World, and a singular good Monk, as Rigaltius has observed of him. Though after all, we must own, that he was not very Ignorant; for there is a tolerable store of Pro∣phane Learning in his Work, and we meet there with several Remarks upon the Pagan Deities that are exceeding Curious and Rare, as well as Entertaining. He seems to have had a great deal of good Sence, of Quickness, and Christian Morality: This Treatise was for a long time buried in Obscurity, and was lately found in our days. Sirmondus had it Copied from an old Manuscript, and Rigaltius made use of this Copy, and Printed it separately in the Year 1650. We may divide it into Three Parts. The First, which contains Thirty six Strophes, is addressed to the Gentiles; whom he exhorts to embrace the Religion of Jesus Christ, after has exposed the Falshood he of the Divinities which they Adored. The Second is directed to the Jews; whom he likewise persuades to embrace the Christian Religion, showing them, that the Law was merely Figurative. He there speaks concerning Anti-christ,

the last Judgment, and the Resurrection. The Last is addressed to the Christian Catechu∣mens, to the Faithful, and to the Penitents, to whom he gives admirable Instructions in Morality. It begins at the Forty sixth Strophe.

We find in this Author most of the Errors of the Ancients. He is of Opinion that the Daemons 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Angels, that were de••••••ched with the love of Women; and that the Giants came from this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Commerce; That the World will end after Six Thousand Years; That Nero was Anti-christ; That there will be Two Resurrections, That of the Just before the Reign of the Thou∣sand Years▪ and the General One at the Day of Judgment; That the Just after the First Resurre∣ction, shall live a Thousand Years upon the Earth; That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that time, all Men shall be Judged, the Wicked thrown head long into Fire, and the whole ••ead of Nature changed. His Moral Instru∣ctions are very Excellent. He recommends to the Consideration of the Catechumens to lead a Life free from Sin. He advices the Penitents to pray Night and Day, to live after an austere manner, that they may obtain Remission of their Sins. He Exhorts the Faithful to avoid all Evil, and to banish from their Hearts the very Motions of Hatred, assuring them, That Martyrdom will stand them in little stead, if they have an Aversion towards their Brethren. He represents to Apostates the greatness of their Sin, and admonishes all Christians in general, that being Souldiers of Jesus Christ, they ought continually to wage War with their Passions. He prohibits them to appear at the Prophane Shows. He advises Christian Women to be Modest, to avoid Luxury and Magnifi∣cence of Apparel. He gives incomparable Instructions to Ministers and Priests, that they may ac∣quit themselves worthily in their Ministry, and persuades them to lead a Life unblameable, and ex∣empt from Avarice; but above all, to relieve the Necessities of the Poor. He counsels the Rich not to value themselves the more highly upon the score of their Riches, but to communicate part to the Indigent; to assist and visit those that are in Sickness, and to Comfort those that labour under Affli∣ction. He says, That we ought not to lament the Death of our Children or Relations. He condemns all Funeral Pomps, and proud Interments. He powerfully reprehends those Persons that don't observe Silence in the Church.

The Priest of the Lord, says he, has said, Lift up your Hearts to God; you answer, That you have; and yet immediately forget the Word. He prays to the Lord in behalf of the People, and in the mean time you are entertaining one another with Stories; you Laugh, you speak Evil of your Neighbours, you talk inconsiderately, as if God were absent, even he that has made all, that sees all, and understands all.

He advises those that Pray to God, to purifie their Hearts, before they address themselves to Him by way of Prayer. In a word, The last Part of his Instructions contains excellent Exhortations, to incline Christians to the Love and Pra∣ctice of Vertue, to turn them away from Vice, and his Remonstrances concerning the corrupt Man∣ners of the Christians, and the Irregularities of his own time, carry a very near resemblance to those of our Age.

JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS.

THIS Author, of whom none of the Ancients have made mention, has written a Treatise, Inti∣tuled, * 1.534 Of the Errours of Prophane Religions, which he has addressed to the Emperours Constan∣tius and Constans, the Son•• of Constantine. The Stile and Matter of this Book abundantly convince us, that it is no Spurious Piece, and the Title it carries, gives us an occasion to Conjecture, that it was writ after the Death of Constantine, the Eldest Son of Constantine the Great, which happened in the Year 340, and before that of Constans, who was Slain by Magnentius in the Year 350, for it being ad∣dressed to Constantius and Constans, there is reason to believe that Constantine their Eldest Brother was already dead, and 'tis very evident that Constans was then alive. We don't know what the Author was, of what Country, or of what Profession. a 1.535 Baronius believes that he was Bishop of Milan; but without any solid Foundation. There are Eight Books of Astronomy that bear the same Name. Now some Persons are of Opinion that they were composed by another Author. b 1.536 Labbé main∣tains, that they belong to the same Man; but we cannot positively assert either one or the other. This Treatise De Errore Prophanae Religionis was Printed at Venice in the Year 1499. At Basil by Her∣vagius in 1533. At Strasbourgh in 1562. And afterwards with Wouverus's Notes by Frobenius in 1603. Afterwards it was joined with Minutius Felix, and Printed at Amsterdam in 1645. And in 1652. At Leyden in 1562, in Quarto. 'Tis likewise to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum. And last∣ly, it was put at the end of the last Edition of St. Cyprian, which was Printed at Paris 1666. The

Author of it discovers the Original of all the several Religions amongst the Pagans, and shows the absurdity of them. In the first place, he shows how prodigiously Men have debased themselves in making Gods of the Four Elements. Secondly, he lays open the Extract and Rise of the fabulous Deities, giving an Historical Account of those things which the Poets have so disguised in Fiction. In the Third place, he demonstrates the Absurdity and Impiety of the Pagan Theology, where several Persons have had the good luck to drop into an Almightyship, only for being more exquisi••ely vil∣lainous than the rest of their Fellow-Creatures. In the fourth place, he takes occasion to refresh their Memories with several particulars relating to their Gods, as how they have been slain, woun∣ded and ill-used by Men. Fifthly, he pretends that the Religion of the Aegyptians derived its Ori∣ginal from Joseph, and that their God Serapis is the same with the above-mentioned Patriarch, who is so called, because he was the Son of Sarah. (This Reason in my Opinion appears to be weak, and ill-grounded.) Sixthly, he observes, that Men have Deified abundance of things which they either love, or have frequent occasion for; and thus they call Eating and Drinking their Dii Pen••tes, or their Houshold Gods: Thus Vesta is the Domestick Fire we daily use, and the same Judgment may be passed of several others, and for this Reason it has happened, that the Names of their Gods de∣note the Proprieties of Natural Things. In a word, he Describes and Enumerates the Prophane Signs, or Mysterious Words that are used by the Pagans in their Way of Worship, and he applies them to Jesus Christ with a great deal of Wit. To say the truth, This Treatise is exceeding Elegant, and is abundantly stored with a great deal of Profound Learning; the Author of it shows a consi∣derable Stock of Knowledge, Wit and Eloquence; he frequently Exhorts the Emperours to destroy the Pagan Temples, to suppress their Religion, and to make use of strong and violent Remedies, to cure Men of their Maladies, and retrieve them from their Extravagancies and Errours. At the same time he Exhorts all Men to feed and nourish themselves with the Bread of Jesus Christ, which is his Word and his Doctrine, (for he does not speak of the Eucharist in this place, as some Per∣sons have vainly imagined) to embrace the Light, and come to the Marriage of the Celestial Bride∣groom. He tells us there, that God made himself Man to save us, and restore us to that Immorta∣lity, which we lost and forfeited by the Fall of Adam; that if he had not assumed a Body in the Womb of the Virgin, and suffered an Ignominious Death for the sake of Mankind, all the Jews, even those of the Old Testament, had never been in a Capacity of obtaining Salvation. He teaches us, that the Soul is Immortal and Spiritual, and that the Daemons were frequently disturbed, and ejected out of the Bodies of those Persons, whom they had possessed, by the powerful Prayers and Interces∣sions of the Christians. He acquaints us with several Figures or Types of the Cross, drawn out of the Old Testament. Lastly, to speak a Word or Two concerning his Morals; he severely declaims and inveighs against those that disguise themselves in Female Habits. These are the Principal and most considerable Heads that are discoursed of in this Treatise. As for his Astronomical, and Ma∣thematical Books, they are divided into Eight Parts. That Work was first Printed by Aldus Manu∣tius at Venice, in the Year 1499. Reveiwed by one who calls himself Pascennius, and afterwards Printed in the same place in 1501. Lastly, It was Published at Basil by Hervagius, and Corrected by Bucherius in the Year 1551.

Of the COUNCILS that were Held in the First Ages of the Church.

THE Canons and Acts of the Councils, ought to be reckoned amongst the Works of the * 1.537 Ecclesiastical Authors, since they are the Works of several Persons assembled in the same place to deliberate upon the Affairs of the Church, that concern either the Faith, or the Discipline, or the Manners of Christians. These Kinds of Assemblies were used in the First Ages of the Church, and the Apostles were the first Authors of them. For the Christians of the Primitive Church, having had some Disputes, Whether they were Obliged to Circumcise and Follow the Law of Moses; The Apostles and Priests convened at Jerusalem, to Examine and Resolve upon this Matter, and at last concluded, That it was not necessary to impose these Burdens upon Christians; but only enjoined them to abstain from Meats offered to Idols, from Blood, and from things Stran∣gled, and from Fornication. a 1.538 This was the First, and Onely Council, to speak properly, that was held by the Apostles themselves.

After their Exam••l••▪ when ••ny Differen••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Church, or when it was necessary to make any Regulations; the 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Priests themselves met together, to decide the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Question••, and appoint Laws for the better Government and Discipline of the Church. 'Tis true indeed, that in the Three First Ages of the Church, these Assemblies were more rare, and less remarkable, than they were in the following Centuries; as well because the continual Persecu∣tions of the Emperours hindered the Bishops from meeting freely and in Publick, as also because the Tradition of the Apostles being as yet fresh in Mens Memories, it was not supposed necessary to Summon a Council for the Establishing of every Truth, and Condemnation of every Errour. Hence it is, that we don't find b 1.539 in any credible Authors, that any Councils were held to Con∣demn the first Hereticks, such as were the Simonians, the Carpocratians, the Basilidians, the Gno∣sticks, &c. The Errours of these Hereticks were looked upon with horrour by all the Christians, who considered the Authors of them; and likewise those that maintained them, as Persons al∣ready Excommunicated, and separated from the Church, without the Solemnity and Trouble of Con∣vening a Synod to Excommunicate them by Name. In short, every Bishop instructed his own Peo∣ple in the True Faith of the Chuch, and confuted all sorts of Errours by the Authority of Scripture, and Tradition.

The first Councils, that are mentioned in Antiquity, are those that were held under the Ponti∣ficate of Pope Victor, to adjust the celebrated Controversie about keeping Easter; and some others that were Assembled almost at the same time to suppress the growing Faction of the Montanists. Eu∣sebius mentions the last in the Fifth Book of his History, Chap. 15. and Tertullian assures us, That in his time the Montanists also met together c 1.540 for themselves. As for what relates to the Synods that were convened upon the Dispute concerning the Celebration of Easter, though the Number of them is usually reckoned to be great; yet Eusebius mentions but Three; one of which was held in Palaestine, another in Asia, and a Third at Rome. And then, as for what concerns the Churches of France, of Pontus, of Corinth, and of the East, he barely tells us, That the respective Bishops there, wrote to Pope Victor about this Matter, without speaking of any Council Assembled in these places.

Agrippinus, towards the Beginning of the Third Century, held a Council in Africk; where it was Or∣dained that Hereticks should be Re-baptized.

There were likewise Two Councils held in Arabia, under the Emperour Gordianus; one against Berillus Bishop of Bostra, who maintain'd, That Jesus Christ was not a different Person from the Father, before he made himself Man; and the other against the Arabians, who affirmed, That the Souls of Men were Mortal.

We don't know at what time the Councils of Iconium and Synnada were Assembled, that Decreed, It was Necessary to re-baptize Hereticks.

I shall say nothing more of the Councils held in Africk, and at Rome in St. Cyprian's time; be∣cause I discoursed largely about them, when I had occasion to consider the Writings and Life of that Father.

Dionysius Bishop of Rome Summoned a Council, in which he Established the Divinity of the Word, and the Mystery of the Trinity against the Errours of the Sabellians, and that which was af∣terwards the Errour of the Arians. He wrote a Letter upon this Occasion to Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Athanasius mentions this Synod.

In the time of Pope Stephen, a Council was held at Antioch; where the Bishops Condemned the Practice of the Novatians. St. Dionysius of Alexandria sent word to Sixtus, that he was invited thi∣ther: Eusebius Lib. 7. Hist. c. 8. St. Epiphanius in his Account of the Heresie of the Noetians, men∣tions Two Synods that were assembled in Asia against Noetus, and gives us an Account of some Words of that Heretick, and of the last Synod.

But of all the Councils that were Summoned in the Three First Centuries, the most Celebrated and Famous, are the Two Councils of Antioch Assembled against Paulus Samosatenus, Bishop of that City, who maintained, That the Word was not truly United to the Humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ; and who likewise, according to the Testimony of some Authors, denied, that the Word was a distinct Person from the Father. The First Council assembled against him, was held at Antioch about the Year 264. Eusebius tells us, That the principal Bishops who assisted there were, Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus, Helenus Bishop of Tarsus, Nicomas Bishop of Iconium, Himenaeus of Jerusalem, Theote••nus of Caesarea; without mentioning an Infinite Number of others as well Bishops as Priests. He says, That St. Dionysius of Alexandria, being invited to this Synod, could not come thither, but that he acquainted them with his Judgment concerning this Matter by way of Letter, where he disdain'd to salute the Author of that Heresie. In all appearance Firmilian presided in this Synod; for the Bishops of the Se∣cond Council say in their Letter, That Paul having Promised to renounce his Opinion, Firmilian gave Credit to his Protestation, and hoping that this Affair might terminate calmly, without any prejudice or dishonour done to the Church, judged it convenient to deferr passing Judgment. And this plainly

proves, that Firmilian held the chief place in the Synod, and that they followed his Advice. Now they did not pass Sentence against Paulus Samosatenus in this Synod, because he had promised to quit his Erroneous Doctrine; but it seems he kept not his Word, but relapsed a little time after into his old Errour; So a Second Council was held against him in the City of Antioch, in the Year 270, where we find Seventy two Bishops. Paulus Samosatenus was here convinced of his Er∣rour by a Priest, whose Name was Malchion, and afterwards he was deposed by the Council, and Dom••us Elected into his Place. The Bishops of this Council soon after wrote a Synodal Letter to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and to all the other Bishops in the World, to give an Account of their Condemning Paulus, and Electing Domnus in his Room. This Letter is to be seen in Eusebius, Lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 30. They there give an ample Relation of what pass'd in the First Synod; in which Paulus Samosatenus having solemnly Promised to change his Opinion, Firmilian thought it convenient to deferr passing Judgment upon him; That the aforesaid Bishop was upon his Jour∣ney, with a Design to come to the Synod, but died by the way. After this, they proceed to lay open the Manners of Paulus, and accuse him of enriching himself by Publick Extortion, Rapine and Sacrilege; they reproach him for his insupportable Arrogance, and Cruel Temper; they com∣plained of him for taking upon him the State of a great Lord, as appeared by his numerous Retinue, by his sitting in an high Tribunal, by his ill Treatment of those Persons that did not make their Court to him, and would not commend him, when they sang Praises to God; by his commanding Hymns to be sung in his own Praise, and ordering himself to be publickly commended in the Sermons, by his living too familiarly with Women, and using his Clergy and People after a tyrannical insolent manner. In short, After they have accused him of all those Vices that are ordinary and common to Bishops of great Sees, they say they condemned him principally because he revived the Errour of Artemas; teaching, That Jesus Christ was a mere Man, and that he did not exist before he was born of the Virgin Mary; and that having deposed him, they chose Domnus in his room. All which they take notice of, that for the time to come, all Communicatory Letters might be addressed to him only.

There is also another Letter attributed to this Council, addressed to Paulus Samosatenus, which contains a Profession of Faith. Baronius ascribes it to the first Council; but it being writ a little before Paulus's Deposition, as manifestly appears by the Title, and by its carrying the Name of Hi∣menaeus in the Front, who presided in the Second Council, and not Firmilian, who presided in the First; we ought to conclude, that it belongs to the Second Council. But we have a great deal of reason to believe that the Letter published by T••rrianus is Supposititious, as well as that of St. Dio∣nysius of Alexandria to Paulus Samosatenus; as we have already shown in another place.

Baronius attributes besides to this Council, a Profession of Faith, set down in the Council of Ephesus in the Third Part, and assigned in that place to the Council of Nice. I don't know what reasons Baronius had to incline him to this Opinion; but it seems past dispute to me, that it does not belong to this Council at Antioch: for certain it is, that the word Consubstantial was there re∣jected, whereas it is to be found in this Profession, as it is set down in the Council of Ephesus, under the Name of the Nicene Council; although it no more belongs to that, than it does to the former: But the truth is, 'Tis a Profession of Faith drawn up by some Bishops, to reconcile the Decisions of those two Councils, and to explain in what sence the word Consubstantial was rejected by the First, and approved by the Second.

Thus I have given a Catalogue of the Councils held in the Three first Ages of the Church, that are mentioned by Authors that deserve Credit. I don't in the least question, but that there were abundance of other Assemblies convened in this time: but then there is no reason to admit those, that are only spoken of by Modern Authors, such as the Praedestinatus published by Sirmondus, the Author of the Synodical Book, Bed••; and some others of the same Character.

Of false Decretals Attributed to the first Popes.

THE Falsity of the Decretals that are attributed to the first Popes before Siricius, is so well known at present, that it would not be necessary to speak any thing concerning them in this * 1.541 place: If the Subject of my Book did not oblige me in a few words to run over the Principal Rea∣sons, which prove them to be supposititious. I begin with them that are general and common to all the Decretals, and I shall afterwards descend to those that are more particular.

1. a 1.542 All these Decretals were unknown to all the Ancient Fathers, to all the Popes, and all the Ecclesiastical Authors, that wrote before the Ninth Century. Now what rational Man can believe, that so vast a Number of Letters composed by so many holy Popes, that contained so many impor∣tant Points in Relation to the Discipline of the Church, cou'd be unknown to Eusebius, to St. Jerome, to St. Augustin, to St. Basil, and in short, to all those Authors that have spoken of the Writings of the Popes, or have written concerning the Discipline of the Church? Cou'd it possibly happen, that the Popes, to whom these Letters are so very favourable, wou'd never have cited and alledged

them, to raise their Reputation? Who wou'd ever imagine that the Decisione of these Decretals should be never so much as quoted in any Council, or in any Canon? He that will seriously con∣sider with himself, that since these Decretals have been imposed upon the World, they have been cited in an infinite number of places by Popes, by Councils, and often copied by the Canonists, will be easily perswaded, that they wou'd have gain'd a mighty Reputation, and been quoted very often by Antiquity, if they had been Genuine and True. b 1.543 The first Man that published them, if we may believe Hincmarus, was one Riculphus Bishop of Mentz, who died about the Beginning of the Ninth Century. 'Tis commonly believed, that he brought them from Spain, since the Collection carries the Name of Isidorus; but 'tis certain, c 1.544 it could never be composed by Isidore the Great, Archbishop of Sevil; and there is great Reason to believe, d 1.545 that it was no Spaniard, but rather some German or Frenchman that begun this Imposture. It likewise e 1.546 seems probable, that some of these Decretals have been foisted in since Riculphus's time, and it is no less credible, that Benedict a Deacon of the Church of Mentz, who made a Collection of Canons by the Order of Autgarius Bishop of Mentz, and Successor of Riculphus, put the last hand to this Collection of false Decretals attributed to one Isidorus f 1.547 Surnamed the Merchant or Sinner, who is a different Person from the famous Bishop of Sevil. g 1.548 We read in History, that about this time, a certain Man named Isidore, the Brother of Eulogius, came from Spain along with some Merchants, and withdrew himself to Mentz. Now 'tis very probable, that this Man's Name was set to the Collection of Decretals, and likewise oc∣casion'd the Belief, that they were brought from Spain.

Secondly, The Imposture of these Letters is invincibly proved from hence, because they are made up of a Contexture of Passages of Fathers, of Councils, of Letters of Popes, of Canons, and Ordi∣nances of Emperours, which have appeared from the Third Age of the Church down to the midst of the Ninth: h 1.549 It is visible, that all these Passages drawn out of several places have been woven together by some Impostor, that had not a Genius large enough to compose the Letters himself.

Thirdly, The Scripture cited in all these Letters follows the vulgar Translation of St. Jerome, which demonstrates that they are since his time, and consequently don't belong to the Popes whose Names they carry, that lived long before.

Fourthly, The Matter of these Letters is not at all agreeable to the Age, when the Popes to whom they are attributed, lived: There is no mention made in any of them, either of Persecutions, or Martyrs, or of the Doctrine of the Church in opposition to the first Hereticks, or of the Duty of Bi∣shops, or of the Care that ought to be taken of the Flock of Jesus Christ: But they speak of the Questions of Doctrine against the Arians, and the Eutychians, and of several Matters of Discipline, which suppose that the Church had been long Established.

Fifthly, These Letters are full of Anachronisms; the Consulships and Names of Consuls are ill pla∣ced, and out of order; nay, more, the true Years of the Popes don't agree oftentimes with the Account that is to be found in these Letters.

Sixthly, The Stile of these Letters is extremely barbarous, they are full of Solecisms, and we fre∣quently meet with some Words in them, that were only used in the lower Ages. It is worth a

Man's while to observe, that all these Letters are of the same Stile; now I desire to know how it cou'd possibly happen, that so many different Popes living in different Ages, should all write the same Stile? This sets it beyond dispute, that all these Letters were composed almost in the same time, and by the same Person; or at least by one that pursued the same Train of Thoughts.

Now since these Letters first appeared in an unlearned dark Age, what wonder is it if they were received with little Contestation? And yet Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims with the i 1.550 French Bi∣shops, even at that time made great difficulty of acknowledging them. But a short time after they acquired some Authority, being supported by the Court of Rome, whose pretensions they mighti∣ly favoured.

After having thus represented the Reasons that prove in general, that all the Decretal Epistles of the Popes before Syricius are Spurious; I shall now descend to particulars, and endeavour to show in few Words, that every Epistle carries undeniable Signs of its being an Imposture, along with it.

The First, and that which seems to bear the greatest Authority, is the Epistle of St. Clement to St. James, the Brother of our Lord; the First Part whereof was formerly Translated by Ruffinus. Isi∣dore has added a Second to it, and they are both of them equally Supposititious. The first, because it supposes that St. Clement wrote that Letter after the Death of St. Peter; whereas it is a Truth that has been constantly received, that St. James, to whom it is written, died before St. Peter. Second∣ly, 'Tis there said, That St. Clement immediately succeeded St. Peter, which is contrary to the Anci∣ents, that place St. Linus and Cletus, or Anacletus between them two. Thirdly, the West is there ridiculously called the darkest part of the World. Fourthly, It is composed to justifie the Itinerary, or Book of the Voyages of St. Peter, which is Apocryphal. The Second Part, that was composed by Isidore, is yet a more evident Cheat: For, 1. It was unknown in the time of Ruffinus, and there∣fore has been invented since. 2. It is full of Texts of Scripture that follow the Translation of St. Jerome: And we likewise meet several Passages there Copied out of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Theodore of Mopsuestia, out of the rule of St. Benedict, out of the Exposition of the Creed by Venantius Fortunatus, out of St. Gregory, and Isidore of Sevil. In short, it speaks of Arch-Priests and Primates, and we find abundance of Words and Expressions in it, that are unworthy of the time of St. Clement.

The Second Epistle of St. Clement directed to St. James, has likewise all the same Marks of For∣gery. In the first place it makes mention of Sacraments, of the Habits in which the Priests celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the Pall, of Sacred Vessels, of Chalices; things that seem not to have been in use in the time of St. Clement. Secondly, It speaks of the Ostiarii, or Door-keepers, Arch-deacons, and other Ecclesiastical Officers, that were not then introduced into the Church. Thirdly, The Letter is writ in a barbarous Stile. Fourthly, The Author alledges the Authority of his Ancestors. Fifthly, It ordains several Practices of little or no Censequence to be observed under pain of Excommunication for Six Years. Sixthly, It supposes that St. Clement instructed St. James in the Actions of our Blessed Saviour, and the Discipline of the Church. Seventhly, It alledges St. James his own words, Work out your Salvation with fear and trembling, under the Name of St. Peter's. This Letter is full of divers Passages taken out of the Author of the Recognitions, out of St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Prosper, Laurentius, Justinianus, and St. Gregory the Great. Lastly, The Scriptures there cited, follow St. Jerome's Translation. The Inscription of the Third Letter of St. Clement alone, is enough to discover the falsity of it. It is directed, To all Suffragan Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and others of the Clergy: To all Princes great and small, and to all the Faithful. Now in St. Clement's time there were no great or small Princes that were of the Church. Secondly, This Letter mentions Sub-Deacons, an Order not then established in the Church. Thirdly, It is for the most part wholly composed of Passages drawn out of the Books of Recognitions: We ought to reject the Fourth for the same Reasons.

The Fifth is directed to St. James, in the Name of St. Clement Bishop of Rome, and Successor of St. Peter: Now St. James died before St. Peter, from whence it necessarily follows, that this Epi∣stle cannot have been written by St. Clement. 2. The Author of this Letter seems to approve the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans; who taught, that Women ought to be kept in common, and the place where he maintains this Errour, is borrowed out of the Book of Recognitions, in which a Pla∣tonist is introduced, disputing upon this occasion. In short, the Author of this Letter tells us, he was present at the Death of Ananias, and St. Clement was not as yet Converted, when St. Peter inflicted that terrible Punishment upon Ananias. We must add to all the foregoing Arguments, this weighty Consideration, that all these Letters are of a different Stile from that of the Epistle to the Corinthians, which is undoubtedly St. Clement's. There were indeed some other Letters formerly assigned to this Saint, but they were different from those which we have examined here; for St. Epi∣phanius, who mentions them, assures us, that he there commends Virginity, and speak very ad∣vantageously of the Prophets. Now there is nothing that looks like this in the above mentioned

Epistles that are chiefly stoln out of the Itinerary of St. Peter, an Apocryphal Work, forged by the Hereticks.

The first Epistles attributed to Pope Anacletus, is visibly Spurious: For, 1. He calls himself in this Letter, the Defender of St. Clement; now according to St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and some other ancients, Anacletus •…•…d St. Peter and not St. Clement. 2. The Author of this Letter is pleased to say, That he received several things from his Ancestors by way of Tradition; and could this Expression possibly drop from a Man that lived in the time of the Apostles? 3. He says, That Ap∣peals from Secular Judges ought to he determined before Bishops, but this was not Customary in the time of the Apostles. 4. He tells us, That the Privileges and Laws of the Church ought to be confirmed, none of which were written in Anacletus's time. 5. He talks of Appeals from Eccle∣siastical Judgments to the Holy See, and mentions the different sorts of Ecclesiastical Causes. But these Questions were never debated under Anacletus, and when they came to be afterwards discussed, the Authority of this Letter was never alledged. 6. He speaks not only of Primates and Metropolitans, but also of the Apocrisiarii, a Name unknown in the Roman Church till the Sixth Century. 7. The Stile of this Letter is barbarous, and full of Solecisms. 8. This Letter is com∣posed of many Passages patched together, that are taken out of the Third Council of Carthage, the Letters of St. Damasus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, Ruffinus, Ennodius, Boniface of Mentz: And there is one Passage borrow'd from St. Cyprian's Book concerning Unity.

Nor are there less Proofs to discover the Imposture of the Second Letter attributed to Pope Ana∣cletus. For, 1. The Author of this Letter would neither have Bishops to be Accused, nor Judged. 2. He says, That the Apostles chose the 70 Disciples; whereas it appears by the Gospel, that our Saviour himself made the choice. 3. He speaks of Primates, of Patriarchs, and of Christian Kings. 4. He mentions the Division of the Ecclesiastick Provinces, which was made long after the Death of Anacletus. Lastly, He inserts into his Discourse some Passages of the Nicene Council, of Damasus, of St. Jerome, of St. Augustin, of St. Gregory, of Isidore of Sevil, of the 5th. Council of Orleans, and the Vulgar Latin. We ought to pass the same Judgment upon the Third Letter attributed to the same Pope for the same Reasons.

The first Letter attributed to Pope Evaristus contains, 1. Some things that have a relation to Clan∣destin Marriage, and several Ceremonies belonging to that Sacrament, all which can by no means agree with the time of Evaristus. 2. 'Tis patched up of some passages out of the vulgar Latin, the Letters of Innocent, and the Dispute of Ithacius against Varimadus. 3. 'Tis dated under Consuls, that were not in the time of Evaristus's Pontificate.

The Author of the Second Letter attributed to the same Pope, after he has commended several Churches and Bishops, inserts many Texts of Scripture following the vulgar Latin, and imitates divers Phrases of St. Cyprian and the African Fathers. He speaks of Primates, and borrows abundance of things out of Ruffinus, St. Gregory, and Isidore of Sevil.

In the first Letter attributed to Pope Alexander, we find many things that discover its Novelty. 1. He mentions some Customs that were not used till after this Pope's time; as amongst others, the Benediction of Water mingled with Salt. 2. He speaks clearly and distinctly of the Trinity, and the Errours of the Arians and Sabellians are so openly rejected, that any Man in the World may see it was written since the Birth of those Heresies. 3. We there find some Passages taken out of Ithacius, Clarus, Siricius, Proclus, Ennodius, and Adrian the First.

In the Second attributed to the same Pope, there is a Quotation out of the Council of Laodicea, that was held under Pope Martin the First, and the Scriptures there cited, follow the common Version. The Third is composed of Passages borrow'd out of Sixtus the Pythagorean, St. Gregory and Isidore of Sevil. Besides the date of it is false.

In the First Epistle attributed to St. Sixtus, he is called an Archbishop, a word not used in his time. 2. The Author confutes those that maintain, that the Son was inferiour to the Father. 3. The Author uses some words and expressions of Ithacius, of the Fifth Council of Rome, of Fla∣vian Archbishop of Constantinople, of Martin the First, of Adrian the First, and Sixtus the Pythago∣rean. In fine, this Letter is dated under the Consulate of Adrian, now there was no Consul of that Name, whilst St. Sixtus was Pope.

The Second attributed to the same Pope, mentions Consecrated Vessels, Appeals to Rome, the Grandeur of that Church. 'Tis there pretended, that all Bishops wait for the Pope's Decision, and are instructed by his Letters: Modes of Speaking never used by the first Bishops of Rome. 2. The Author borrows the better part of what he says concerning Pope Sixtus and Zosimus, out of the Fifth Council of Rome, held under Symmachus and Martin the First. In a word, the date of the Consuls is the very same with that of the former, and consequently discovers the falsity of it.

The Epistle attributed to Telesphorus, calls him an Archbishop; a Name unknown in the First Ages. 2. There is a Decree in it, to enjoin Three Masses on our Saviour's Nativity, a Custom which is not so Ancient. 3. The Author supposes, that the Laity and Clergy could not accuse one another in Judgment. 4. He has borrowed several places out of Damasus, St. Jerome, Proclus, St. Leo, Flavian, and Ennodius, Authors of a much later date than Telesphorus. 5. He makes use of the vulgar Tran∣slation of the Bible. In short, the date of the Consuls is false and erroneous.

The Two Letters ascribed to Higinus, are manifestly Spurious. The First is made up of several places taken out of Ithacius, St. Leo, Martin the First, and Adrian the First. The Second is stuffed with Texts of Scripture, according to the old Translation; the date of the Consuls is equally false in both of them.

The Imposture of the First Letter attributed to Pope Pius, appears, 1. Because the Stile of it is rough and barbarous. 2. Because it speaks of a pretended Revelation that appeared to Hermas, who is supposed to be the Brother of Pius. 3. Because there are some Passages manifestly Copied out of the Books of Isidore of Sevil, St. Leo, the Fifth Council of Rome, Sixtus the Pythagorean, Adrian the First, and the Vulgar Latin. Lastly, Because the Date of the Consuls is false, as well as in the Se∣cond Letter, which is as evidently forged and spurious as the First. The Theodosian Code is cited there, and likewise a Decree is published in it, which Ordains, That those Clergymen who are found diso∣bedient to their Bishop, should be delivered over to the Secular Power; which Passage does not agree with the time of Pope Pius the First.

The Two other Letters attributed to the same Pope, are addressed to Justus Bishop of Vienna, and are taken out of the Archives of the Church of Vienna. Baronius pretends they are Genuine, because the Stile of them is Simple, and because they are agreeable to the History of the time of that Pope; but there are far greater Reasons to incline us to believe, that they are spurious, 1. The barbarous Stile. 2. The Name of Mass unknown to the Ancients. 3. The affected Terms; such as are, Super∣beate, Senatoria, Cubilibus aeternis, Perseverabilem, Primarchus, Senatus pauper Christi. 4. It mentions Habits peculiar to Bishops. Lastly, These Letters were unknown to all Anti∣quity.

We find several Passages in the Letter attributed to Anicetus, which don't agree with the time of that Pope; as for instance, what is there laid down concerning the Ordinations of Bishops, Sacerdotal Tonsure, Archbishops, Primates, and Patriarchs, which were not instituted till long after; besides ma∣ny other things of the same Nature. 2. The Author of that Letter uses the Vulgar Latin; and Co∣pies abundance of things out of St. Leo, Adrian the First, and the Councils of Nice and Antioch. Last∣ly, He is mistaken in the Date of his Consuls.

The First Letter attributed to Soter, is full of Passages borrowed from Ithacius, St. Leo, and the Vul∣gar Latin; and the Consuls there mentioned, held the Consulship some Years before Soter was Bishop of Rome.

The Second Letter attributed to the same, is a Miscellany taken out of the Council of Laodicea, and out of Gelasius, Martin the First, and St. Leo. It speaks of Monks, of Palls, &c. Besides the Date of the Consuls does not agree with the Years of this Pope's Pontificate.

The Epistle of Eleutherus treats of Ecclesiastical Judgments in favour of the Court of Rome. The Author of it pretends, That all Causes relating to the Church, ought to be determined there, and that they cannot be tried in the Province; a Practice contrary to all Antiquity. He follows the Vul∣gar Latin in his Quotations of Scripture, and cites a Text out of St. John, which he attributes to St. Paul. He copies several Passages out of the Popes St. Leo, Felix the Third, Anastasius, Adrian the First, Victor of Carthage, Hilary the Deacon, the Fourth Council of Carthage, the Sixth Council of To∣ledo, and the Theodosian Code. Lastly, The Date of the Consuls is false.

The Inscription of the First Epistle attributed to Victor, plainly discovers the falsity of it. 1. It be∣stows upon him the Quality of Archbishop of the Universal Church; a Title which the Ancient Popes never gave themselves. 2. It is directed to Theophilus of Alexandria, who lived almost 200 Years af∣ter Victor. 3. The Author of this Letter speaks of the Judgments of Bishops, and Appeals to Rome, according to the Pretensions of the Bishops of Rome in the latter Ages. Lastly, He uses the Testimo∣nies of St. Leo and Isidore. The Second Letter attributed to the same Pope, is full of Passages bor∣rowed from St. Leo, and the Vulgar Latin. The Third and Fourth published by Johannes de Bosco, and taken out of the Library of the Abby of Fleuri, are written in a Stile, that manifestly discovers their Novelty. The Scriptures there cited, follow the Vulgar Latin. The First is directed to Deside∣rius Bishop of Vienna; now we don't read that there was ever any Bishop of that Name in Vienna, be∣fore the time of Pope Gregory the Great.

The First Letter of Zephirinus is composed of several Passages taken out of St. Leo, St. Prosper, Vi∣gilius, St. Gregory, Martin the First, Adrian the First, the Theodosian Code, Anianus, and Sixtus the Pythagorean. 2. We find in it the Names of Patriarch and Primate. 3. It treats about the Decisions of Bishops, and Appeals to the Holy See. 4. The Consul Gallicanus is named there; now there was none of that Name in the time of Zephirinus. Lastly, The Author of it supposes, that the 70 Disci∣ples were chosen by the Apostles.

The Second Letter attributed to the same Pope, is yet more visibly spurious. 1. The Author of it very impertinently cites the Imperial Laws in favour of the Bishops. 2. He speaks of the Apocrisi∣arii. 3. He heaps together the very Thoughts and Words of St. Prosper, Adrian, and Paul of Con∣stantinople. 4. He cites the Canons of Pope Adrian as Ancient Statutes. And at last, he says, that there were false Brethren in Africk that plundered and spoiled the Bishops: Which cannot possibly be true, for there was no Persecution in Africk in the time of Pope Zephirinus.

The First Epistle attributed to Calistus, is filled with Passages taken out of the Nicene Council, the Fifth Council of Rome, St. Prosper, Gelasius, Symmachus, Isidorus, Anianus, and Sixtus the Pytha∣gorean. He speaks of Ember-Weeks, that were instituted long after the time of this Pope. The Second is likewise full of Passages drawn out of the Council of Antioch, the Fourth Synod of Car∣thage, Simplicius, St. Austin, St. Gregory, Adrian, and Sixtus the Pythagorean. We find several new Con∣stitutions there.

The Author of the Epistle attributed to Urban, gives large Commendations of a Life, where all things are held in common; He speaks of Vows, and the Revenue of the Church; he uses the Thoughts and Words of St. Prosper, Eusebius, the Council of Paris, Gregory the Fourth, the Theodosian Code, and the Vulgar Latin.

The Two Letters attributed to Pope 〈◊〉〈◊〉, are made up of Passages taken out of the Vulgar La∣tin, St. Gregory, St. Jerome, Sixtus the Pythagorean: The rest is written in a barbarous Stile.

The Author of the Epistle attributed to A•…•… speaks of a Bishop of Ephesus named Felix, but un∣known to the Ancients, and places one Eusebius amongst the Bishops of Alexandria, who is not to be found in the Catalogue of the Bishops of that See. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Touching the Translation of Bishops, he esta∣blishes some things, contrary to the Determinations of the Councils of Antioch, Sardica and Chalcedon. And besides, he cites the Words of St. Jerome, Siricius, Ennodius, St. Gregory, Isidore, Martin the First, and Sixtus the Pythagorean.

The Author of the First Epistle attributed to Fabian, supposes that Novatus came to Rome in his Papacy, though it was in Cornelius's time, according to the Testimony of St. Cyprian, Eusebius, and St. Jerome. Secondly, he borrows several Passages out of Ruffinus, St. Leo, St. Gregory, Adrian the First, and Boniface of Mentz.

In the Second Epistle attributed to the same Pope, we read, 1. That disobedient Clerks ought to be delivered up to the Secular Arm. 2. That the Holy Chrism must be made Yearly. 3. We find some places in it, that are Copied out of the Second Council of Carthage, the Fifth of Rome, the Council of Antioch, Siricius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Innocent, Zosimus, Celestine, Proclus, St. Gregory, Isidore, and Adrian. The Third is full of Passages drawn out of the Letters of Pope Adrian, the Theodo∣sian Code, Anianus, Felix the Third, St. Gregory, the Second Council of Carthage, the Council of Toledo, and other Publick Monuments later than Fabian.

The first Letter attributed to Cornelius is full of Errours; 'Tis there said, First, That the Bodies of St. Peter and St. Paul were removed out of the Catacombs; which appears to be false by the Testi∣mony of St. Gregory, who tells us in the third Letter of his third Book, That the Body of St. Paul lay always near the Porta Ostia, and St. Peter's in the Vatican. Secondly, Some Passages are to be found in this Letter, taken out of the Epistles of Martin the First, and St. Leo. The Second is a Collection of several things out of the Constantinopolitan Council under Flavian, the First and Third Council of Carthage, the Council of Chalcedon, the Fifth of Rome, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and Boniface of Mentz; but nothing shows the Imposture of these two Letters more palpably, than the difference of Stile from those that truly belong to Cornelius, which are to be seen in St. Cy∣prian, with the Fragment of one in Eusebius. There is another Letter of his besides, to Lupici∣nus Bishop of Vienna, which is writ in a Stile as different from that of the true Cornelius, as any of the rest; we find the word Mass in it, which was unknown to the Authors, that lived in the time of this Pope.

The Epistle attributed to Lucius, is full of Citations out of the Vulgar Latin, and of several Passages taken out of the First Council of Arles, the Third of Carthage, that of Milevis, St. Leo, Gregory, Agatho, Adrian, and Sixtus the Pythagorean: Besides, it is dated Six Months before the Ele∣ction of Lucius.

The two Epistles attributed to Stephanus, are filled with Citations out of Modern Authors, and Sta∣tutes, that don't all agree with the time of this Pope, and consequently are Spurious.

For the same Reasons, we must pass the same Judgment of the two Letters of Sixtus the Se∣cond, the two of Pope Dionysius, the three of St. Felix the First, the two of Eutychianus, that of Carus, the two of Marcellinus, those of Marcellus, the three of Eusebius, the Letter and De∣cree of Miltiades, and the rest of the Letters of the Popes collected by Isidore, that are full of several Passages taken out of the Fathers, Popes, and Councils more Modern than the very Popes, by whom they are pretended to be written; and in which many things are to be found, that don't in the least agree with the true History of those times, and were purposely said to favour the Court of Rome, and establish her Pretensions against the Rights of Bishops, and the Liberties of Churches. But it would take up too much time to show the gross falsity of these Monuments, that are now re∣jected by a common Consent, and even by those Authors, that are most favourable to the Court of Rome, who are obliged to abandon the Patronage of these Epistles, though they have done a great deal of Service in establishing the greatness of the Court of Rome, and ruining the ancient Discipline of the Church, especially in relation to Ecclesiastical Decisions, and Rights of Bishops.

An Abridgment of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Morality of the Three First Ages of the Church.

AFter having given a Summary of what is contained in the Works of the Ecclesiastical Au∣thors for the Three first Ages of the Church, I supposed it would not be amiss, to present the * 1.551 Reader with an Abridgment also of the Theology of the Primitive Christians. This Design, besides the relation it had to the Work it self, seem'd in my Opinion to be the principal Fruit and Advantage that could be gathered from it. For the ultimate Scope and End, which a Man ought to propose to himself in reading the Ecclesiastical Authors, and their History, is not to gratifie a vain foolish Curiosity, but to learn Religion thereby. We must not study these Matters, only to make a Pompous Ostentation of our Knowledge, but to become better Christians, to become more certain of the Doctrine of the Church, more respectful to its Discipline, and better instructed in its Holy Morality. For all Theology reduces it self to these Three Points,

Doctrine, Discipline and Morality. Doctrine concerns the Articles of Faith that our Religion teaches us; Discipline concerns the Government of the Church; and Morality teaches us, what things we are to do, and what we are to forbear. Hereticks overthrow the Doctrine of the Church by their Errours. Schismaticks destroy its Discipline by violating the Orders and Rules of the Church: And lastly, The vitious Christian discards and lays aside the Laws of its Morality, by living after an irregular manner. For the better avoiding these Rocks and Precipices, it is exceed∣ing requisite for all Christians, to draw out of the Tradition of the ancient Church, that is to say, out of the Books of the Primitive Fathers, who are the unquestionable Witnesses of the Opinion of the Church in their own times; to draw, I say, from thence the Doctrine which they are obliged to believe, to examine the Ecclesiastical Discipline, which they are to revere and obey, and lastly from thence to learn the most Holy Rules of the Christian Morality.

An Abridgment of the Doctrine.

THE Doctrine of the Church was always the same, and will be ever so till the end * 1.552 of the World: For 'tis utterly impossible that the true Church should cease to be, or that the true Church should not teach the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, because whether she should teach a Doctrine different from that of Jesus Christ, or whether she should not teach the Doctrine of our Blessed Saviour, in both these Cases she would cease to be the true Church. Jesus Christ, as St. Ire∣naeus, Tertullian, and all the rest of the Ancients have observed, taught his Apostles all the Truths of Faith. The Apostles published them throughout all the Earth, and opened them to all the Churches in the World, whose Doctrine is found to be conformable each to other in Articles of Faith. This Doctrine was always preserved in the Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. 'Tis indeed very true, that they did not always make use of the same terms, and that be∣fore the Birth of Heresies, they did not observe that precaution in speaking of Mysteries, which they did afterwards, when they were attack'd by the Hereticks: But still the Foundation of Do∣ctrine was always the same as to the principal Articles of our Faith. We must likewise acknow∣ledge, that there were some Errours very frequent in the First Ages of the Church, that have been rejected since, but then they don't concern the principal Articles of our Faith; and besides were never looked upon to be the received Doctrine of the Church, but only the most common Opinions. These previous Observations, will be confirmed by an Abridgment of the Doctrine of the Church, as it is delivered by the Authors of the Three first Centuries; which we are going to represent in as few words as possibly we can.

They taught, That the Grounds and Principles of Faith, were the Holy Scriptures, and Tradi∣tion; that we ought to believe Mysteries, though we were not able to comprehend them; they spoke of the Nature of God and of his Attributes after a most excellent manner; they believed him to be Invisible, Eternal, Incorruptible, &c. they have frequently discoursed of his Providence, his Power, his Bounty, his Mercy, and his Goodness; they wrote very sharply against the false Divi∣nities of the Pagans, and the Errours of Hereticks, who imagined that there cou'd be above one So∣veraign and Independant Being; they proved that God Created all Things, and even Matter it self, which was not Eternal; they acknowledged the Trinity of the Three Persons in one only God, the Divinity and Eternity of the Word, and of the Holy Ghost; they maintain'd that the Word was from all Eternity in God, as a Person distinct from the Father; that the Father created the World by him, and that he governs it, and that it was the Person of the Word that appear'd to the ancient Patriarchs under different Figures, and who was at last Incarnate; that Jesus Christ was the Word made Man, God and Man all together, composed of two intire and different Natures; that he had a Soul and Body like unto ours; that he took this Body in the Womb of the Virgin Mary; that his Flesh was real and true; that he suffered and was really Dead; that he made himself Man, to save the World that was lost by the Sin of the first Man; that he came to discover the Truth to them, to show them an Example; and that he redeemed them by his Death; that he descended into Hell, and afterwards rose again from the Dead; that he will come at the Day of Judgment to judge all Men; that he will Condemn the Wicked to Everlasting Punishments, and reward the Good with Eternal Happiness, after he has raised up both the one and the other. All the Fathers, of whom we have spoken, make Profession of this Faith, and assure us, That this is the Doctrine, which all the Churches in the World have received from the Apostles, and that it was necessary to believe it in order to become a Christian. They sometime make use of some Expressions concerning the Person of the Word, that seem to derogate from his Divinity; as for instance, when they say, that the Word was not begotten, till the Beginning of the World; that he is visible, and that the Father is invisible; that he is one Portion of the Substance of the Father, and that the Father is all Substance. But these ways of Speaking, have a very good Meaning in these Authors, as we have often observed. For when they say, That the Word was begotten at the Beginning of the World, and that he was not the Son before, they don't mean that the Word began only to exist then, since they acknowledge he existed before, and was in God from all Eternity: But they take the Word Generation in ano∣ther Sence than we do, giving this Name to a certain Prolation, or Emission of the Word, which they imagine was done, when God resolved to create the World; and 'tis in this sence they say, that

the Word who was from all Eternity in God, was generated or begotten at that time, and that he had not always the Quality of the Son. We have likewise explained in what sence they say, that the Word is visible, and the Father invisible; and we have made it evidently appear, that they did not believe, that the Word was therefore of a different Nature from the Father, but only that they attributed Visibility to the Son, as they ascribed Almightiness to the Father: Saying, That it is through the Son, that God makes every External Being, and consequently that by him he renders himself visible to Mankind. This Manner of Speaking is so little contrary to the Divinity of the Word, that it is to be found in Athanasius, and in the other Fathers that lived after the Nicene Council. In short, when they say that the Son was a Portion of the Substance of the Father, we are so far from being able to conclude that they were of Arius's Opinion, that on the contrary, it follows from thence, that they believed the Son was not created of Nothing, as Arius afterwards taught, but that he was Consubstantial to the Father; that is to say, of the same Substance as the Nicene Council has determined. But wherefore do they say, that the Son is only something derived from the Substance of the Father? Is it because they believed he was inferiour to the Father? Not at all, but it was because they conceived, that the Father, as having all the Divinity in him, commu∣nicated it to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. 'Tis upon this account that they usually ascribe to the Person of the Father all the Attributes of the Godhead, as we may see in the Greed, where after it is said, I believe in God, they add, Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, &c. and yet we must not therefore say, that these Attributes don't agree to the Son and the Holy Ghost, but only that they are attributed to the Father; because he is the Fountain and Original of the Divinity, and because the Son and Holy Ghost receive it from him. I pass over in Silence some feeble Obje∣ctions, that are only founded upon the ambiguity of the words Nature and Creation, that have not been as yet determined to a certain sence, as also the Signification of the word Hypostasis has been a long time undetermined. Thus when the Son is called another Substance than the Father, (though that is but very seldom) yet we are not to conclude from thence, that the Person who speaks after this manner, does not believe him to be truly God, because the Words of Nature and Substance were not at that time determined to the sence, they received afterwards, and because they may be taken for a Person subsisting. This is so true, that Gregory Nazianzen, and some others that lived in a time, when these Expressions were determined, forbore not to say sometimes that the Father was the first Substance or Nature, and the Son the Second: And thus it is ordinary for those, that acknowledged the Divinity of the Word, to say, That God made or created him, though they be∣lieve that he was not created of Nothing, but Begotten of the Divine Substance.

As to the Incarnation, the Fathers of the Three first Centuries have said nothing that in the least seems to favour the Errours of the Paulianists, the Apollinarists, the Nestorians, or the Eutychians; and they always distinguished Two Natures in Jesus Christ, and admitted the Proprieties of these Natures without Confusion, and being changed one into the other, yet re-united at the same time in the same Person, God and Man both together. They likewise plainly say, That Jesus Christ was Born of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Ghost, without Concupiscence and without Sin. And though they frequently tell us, That the benefit of the Incarnation is the Instruction, and the Example which Jesus Christ has given us; yet they acknowledge besides that, that he has truly Re∣deemed us by his Death; and that he has satisfied God for us. They believed, that we could not be Saved without believing in him; and for that Reason they imagined, that he descended into Hell, as well as the Apostles after him, to Preach the Gospel there to the Jews and Gentiles, who had known the true God, and had lived virtuously. They were of Opinion, That the Day of Judg∣ment was at hand; That the Souls of Men until that Day, were neither perfectly Happy nor Mise∣able, though they underwent some Punishment before-hand, or were at rest, according to the pro∣portion of the Good or Evil they had done in their Bodies. They almost universally believed with Papias, that Jesus Christ was to Reign a Thousand Years upon Earth, but they never asserted that Opinion as a Matter of Faith. They were sufficiently divided about the Nature of the Soul; some of them supposed it to be Corporeal, others declared, That they believed it to have been Spiritual; but how∣ever the better part of them agreed that it was Immortal, that the Just would be rewarded with Everlast∣ing Happiness, and the Wicked everlastingly Punished. They never disquieted themselves in examining wherein the Beatitude consisted, but they were perswaded, That the Wicked should be punished with Fire, and that not Metaphorical, but Real. They advanced Man's Free-Will very highly, and maintain∣ed that he might carry himself either to Good or Evil; and yet they acknowledged, That since the Transgression of the First Man, we were naturally inclined to Evil, and that we stood in need of the Assistance and Grace of God to determine us to what was Good. They did not Philosophize too far about the Nature, and several Species of Angels; but only satisfied themselves, that there were good Angels, and likewise bad ones called Daemons. They were of Opinion, that both the one and the other were Corporeal, and imagined that the bad Angels were lost for their love of Women, and they positively asserted, that the good Ones took care of things below. All of them were sensible of the Wounds and Punishment of Adam's Sin, but they don't seem to agree, that Infants were born subject to Sin, and worthy of Damnation. Nevertheless, this appears to be the common Opi∣nion; as is evident from St. Cyprian, who says,

That it was requisite to Baptize Infants before the Eighth day, for fear lest if they died without Baptism, this delay should prove the occasion of their Destruction.

They often spoke of the Necessity and wonderful Effects of Baptism, and said that the Holy Ghost descended by the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop. They main∣tained, That the Church had Power to reconcile those that repented of their Sins; and did not doubt but that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and accordingly called it by that

Name. They extolled Virginity without condemning Marriage; they honoured the Saints and Martyrs as the Servants of God, they spoke of the Virgin Mary with a great deal of respect, and yet with no less discretion and advisedness. St. Clement affirms, That she continued a Virgin after her Delivery; but Origen, Tertullian, and some others, were of the contrary Opinion. We find no∣thing in the Three first Ages of the Church, either for or against the Assumption; there is a Passage in St. Irenaeus, that is not favourable to the immaculate Conception. They believed that the Holy Scriptures were written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that they contain all the principal Articles of our Faith; that though they are obscure in some places, yet they are clear enough in many others, and that even their Obscurity has its Use; and that all Christians might read them, provided they made good use of them: That it is necessary to believe what the Scripture, Tradition and the Church teach us, without endeavouring to search too deep into the Mysteries of our Reli∣gion, and disputing about them. They acknowledged no other Books of the Old Testament to be Canonical, but those that were received into the Canon of the Jews, though now and then they cited some other Books as very good and useful. In the New Testament they received as Canonical the Four Evangelists, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, (though some of them questioned that to the Hebrews, and many Persons attributed it to another, and not to St. Paul) the First Epistles of St. John, and of St. Peter. The Epistles of St. James and St. Jude. The Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John were received by some, and rejected by others, as well as the Apoca∣lypse. They sometimes cited the Apochryphal Books, but never reckoned them amongst the Cano∣nical Scriptures.

Thus I have given you a short Summary of part of the Opinions of the Fathers in the Three First Ages of the Church. The most part of the Proofs, which I have here laid down, are to be found in the Abridgment of those Authors, that I have made in this Volume; and I don't in the least question, but that those Persons, who will carefully read over the same Authors, will be sensible, that I have imposed nothing upon them, and that their Doctrine is what I have now represented it.

An Abridgment of the Discipline.

WE cannot say of the Discipline of the Church, what we have affirmed concerning its Do∣ctrine, viz. That it is the same in all Times, and all Places; because it is an undeniable * 1.553 Truth, that it has been different in many Churches, and has been from time to time subject to change. We ought not however to conclude from this Principle, that it is unnecessary to study the Primitive Discipline, or that we are obliged only to learn that of the Time and Church where we live; for besides, that those Persons who are ignorant of the Discipline of the Primitive Church, cannot pre∣tend to understand the Books of the Ancients, this ancient Discipline is the Foundation of ours: And though the Exteriour part has been changed, yet the Spirit of the Church is always the same. It is not therefore an unprofitable Labour as some have vainly imagined, to busie ones self in examining the Dis∣cipline of the Ancient Church; on the contrary it is a Study extremely useful, and necessary for a Divine.

It must be acknowledged that the Discipline that was observed in the Infancy of the Church, however Holy it was in its Simplicity, yet was not arrived to its Perfection; for the Apostles alto∣gether applying themselves to what was necessary at the beginning, were content to Preach the Do∣ctrine and Morality of our Blessed Saviour, without giving themselves the trouble to regulate what related to the Ceremonies, or Discipline of the Church. Nevertheless we are not to imagine, that they intirely neglected it, and St. John, who lived longer than the rest of the Apostles, seems to have applied himself more particularly to it. But the Successors of the Apostles, by little and little, re∣gulated the Ceremonies, that ought to be observed, as well in the Administration of the Sacraments, as in the Assemblies of Christians, and made particular Orders about the Government of Churches, the Form of Ecclesiastical Judicatures, and many other Points of Discipline.

These Ceremonies were exceedingly augmented in the Fourth Century, when the Church began to enjoy the benefits of Peace and Tranquillity, and Publickly celebrated the Divine Service in the time of the Emperour Constantine. Then it was that the Bishops met together with Liberty, being suppor∣ted by the Authority of Princes; and made abundance of Rules concerning the Government of the Church, the Rights of the Bishops of the greater Sees, the Forms of Judicature, and infinite Numbers of other Matters.

We have here obliged our selves to speak only of the Discipline, that was observed in the Three First Ages of the Church: Then it was plain and simple, and had scarce any other Splendor to recommend it, but what the Holiness of the Manners and Lives of the Christians gave to it. They Assembled every Sunday in particular, in certain Places appointed and set apart for Publick Devotion, where they continued a long time in Prayer, which they pronounced with a low Voice, without Singing it aloud, as afterwards they did. The Bishop, or in his Absence, the Minister, presided in that Con∣gregation, where they read the Holy Scriptures, and oftentimes the Bishop preached the Word of God. The Festivals of our Blessed Saviour's Nativity, of Easter, and Whitsunday were Celebrated even in those Days with great Solemnity. It was not their Custom on Sundays, as likewise from Easter to Whitsunday, to pray Kneeling, and when they offered up their Prayers, they always turned to the East. The places where they met were plain and without Ornament, and it seems probable, thatin those times the use of Images, of Crosses, and Incense was not common. They did not give

the Name of Temple to their Houses of Publick Prayer, nor that of Als••r to the Table upon which they celebrated the Eucharist; they had often their Feasts of Charity and Benevol••nce, which they called Aga••••, where all Comers were kindly entertained.

They pray'd for the Dead, and made Oblations for them, and celebrated the Sacrifice of the Ma••s in Commemoration of them; the Christians gave one another a Kiss of Peace; they called one ano∣ther by the Name of Brethren, and continually made the Sign of the Cross. They pray'd to Saints and Martyrs, and solemnized the day of their Death with Joy, and were perswaded that they interceded with God in behalf of the Living. They Baptized with some Ceremonies, those that were well instructed in their Religion, and who had given satisfactory Signs of their sincere Conversion; they generally dipt them thrice in the Water, invoking the Name of the Holy Trinity, and they never administred this Sacrament solemnly, but at the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost. In Africk to∣wards the Third Age of the Church, they made use of Holy Water in Baptizing their Neophytes. They anointed them with Oil after Baptism, and imagined that this Ceremony convey'd some In∣ternal Benefit to them, and likewise in some Churches they gave them Milk and Honey to taste. They imposed hands upon them, that the plenitude of the Holy Ghost might descend on them, and they considered this Imposition of Hands, which was generally reserved for the Bishop, as a di∣stinct Sacrament from Baptism.

Baptism was never reiterated amongst them, but by Hereticks in some particular Churches, and if after it any Christians fell into Sin, of which they were convinced, or made a Confession to the Priest, they were enjoyn'd a severe Pennance; that is to say, they were thrown out of the Com∣munion of the Church, forbidden the Assemblies of the Faithful, and obliged to Fast, to Humble and Mortifie themselves Publickly at the Church-Porch. In some Churches, and particularly in those of Africk and Rome, there was a time, when they never admitted to Peace those that fell into Idolatry, or those that had committed Murder and Adultery. They afterwards consented to some relaxation for Murderers, and Adulterers, and afterwards for Idolaters themselves, whom they re∣conciled to the Church, either at the point of Death, or after a long and severe Penance. 'Tis true indeed, they did not use the same Severity in all Churches, and in some they admitted Offen∣ders to a Reconciliation after a short Penance, and they likewise abated somewhat of the Rigour of it at the recommendation of the Martyrs. As for the Clergy, those of them that fell into any notorious Sin, were not only deprived for ever from the Ministry, but also obliged to undergo Pub∣lick Penance, at least in some Churches. They that had once undergone this Scandal in the Face of the Congregation were never admitted into the Clergy. They imposed this course of Re∣pentance never but once, and whoever fell into his vitious Transgressions the second Time, could never be reconciled to the Church, and was to expect his Pardon from God alone. The Sentence of Excommunication was pronounced against Hereticks, the Disturbers of Discipline, and those Christians that persisted in a profligate irregular Life. He that was Excommunicated by a Bishop, could be no where received into Communion. The Matter of the Eucharist was ordinary Bread, and Wine mingled with Water; the Faithful made this Offering, and the Priest or the Bishop that presided in the Assembly, said Prayers and Thanksgivings over the Bread and over the Chalice, and after these Prayers were ended, all the Congregation answered Amen. They divided the Conse∣crated Bread into several pieces, and the Deacons distributed them to the Standers by, and gave them also the Consecrated Wine. In some Churches this Distribution was reserved for the Priests, and in others every Man approached near the Table, and took his Portion of the Eucharist himself. All the Christians took it with wonderful respect, protesting they received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: they received the Species of Bread in their hands, and likewise the Eucharist was given to Infants under the Species of Wine. They generally received it in the Morning before they had eaten, but this Custom was not intirely Established as a Law, and sometimes they received it in the midst of a repast. This Celebration of the Eucharist was frequently called a Sacrifice; the Priest recited several Prayers both before and after Consecration, and St. Cyprian observes, that he said, Lift up your hearts to God: And the People answered, We have lifted them up to the Lord. The manner of celebrating this Sacrament was Simple and without abundance of Ceremonies, as we have alreadly observed in another place. They received the Eucharist often, and generally whenever they met together in the Assemblies of the Faithful: but they believed that they were obliged to live Piously, and according to the Holy Rules of the Gospel, that they might partake of this Celestial Food worthily, and after a manner that might be beneficial to them. There is no mention made, in the Three first Ages of the Church, of Anointing the Sick, which St. James speaks of; perhaps be∣cause it was seldom used in that time. Marriage was celebrated in presence of the Priests, and was confirmed by some Oblation. Second Marriages were reputed Scandalous; nay, they were con∣demned by some Persons. In some Churches they allowed the Husband to send home his Wife and Marry another, in case of Adultery only: But this was no general Custom amongst them. They took great Care in the Choice of their Ministers to elect such Persons, whose Life and Conversation were unblameable. After the Death of those who had been ordained by the Apostles, the People elected. Though the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were frequently confounded; yet the Bi∣shops were above the Presbyters. The Bishops were generally Ordained by their Brethren, who imposed their Hands upon them, and the Priests by the Imposition of their Bishop and the Clergy. The Bishop was mightily respected and considered by them: Nothing of considerable moment in the Church could be done without him, even Baptism it self was reserved for him, but then he treated his Presbyters as Brethren, and did nothing without their Advice. There were Deacons in the Times of the Apostles, to whom belonged the Administration of Sacred Things at the beginning

of the Church, and to whom in some places it was allowed to lay hands upon Penitents in case of Ne∣cessity. The Deaconnesses also are very Ancient. As for the Sub-Deacons, and other inferiour Orders, they were afterwards instituted; yet they were in use in St. Cyprian's time.

All the Bishops were perswaded, that they received their Office immediately from Jesus Christ, and that Providence had assigned to each of them a Portion of the Flock of the Heavenly Pastor to Govern, in such a manner however, as that in an exigence or time of Necessity, they were to relieve the wants of all Churches. They lived in great Union together, and preserved a mutual Correspon∣dence by Letters, which they sent to one another. The Bishops of great Cities had their Prerogatives in Ordinations, and in Councils, and as in Civil Affairs Men generally had recourse to the Civil Metropolis; so likewise in Ecclesiastical Matters, they consulted with the Bishop of the Metropoli∣tan City. The Churches of the Three Principal Cities of the World were looked upon as Chief, and their Bishops attributed great Prerogatives to themselves. The Church of Rome founded by St. Pe∣ter and St. Paul, was consider'd as first, and its Bishop, as first amongst all the Bishops of the World; yet they did not believe him to be Infallible, and though they frequently consulted him, and his Advice was of great Consequence, yet they did not receive it blind-fold and implicitely, every Bishop imagining himself to have a Right to Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters. They had a Prodigious respect for the Decisions of Councils; and the Opinion of the Universal Church, that is to say, of all the Churches in the World, passed for an Infallible Rule of Faith: They esteemed those Persons, that were separated from the visible Society of the Church, to be Schismaticks, for whom no Salvation was to be had. The Clergy were not distinguished from others by any peculiar Habits, but by the Sanctity of their Life and Manners, they were removed from all kind of Avarice, and carefully avoided every thing that seem'd to carry the appearance of scandalous, filthy lucre. They administred the Sacrament gratis, and believed it to be an abominable Crime to give or receive any thing for a Spiritual Blessing. Tithes were not then appropriated to them, but the People maintained them voluntarily at their own ex∣pence. The Goods of the Church were in common between the Priests and Bishop, who had the Administration of them; the Offerings were reserved for the Poor; the Pastors never abandoned the Flock that was committed to their Care, but with infinite regret, and only in case of Necessity, and carefully acquitted themselves in all the Functions of the Ministry. The Clergy were prohi∣bited to meddle with any Civil and Secular Affairs. They were ordained against their Will, and did not remove from one Church to another, out of a Principle of Interest, or Ambition. They were ex∣tremely Chast and Regular. It was lawful for Priests to keep the Wives they married before they were Ordained, but Marriage was never permitted after Ordination; but both the one and the other was al∣lowed to Deacons. Monks were not as yet instituted; but there were abundance of Persons of both Sexes amongst the Christians, that lived in a state of Celibacy, and chearfully submitted to the austerities of an Ascetick Life. There were likewise some Women in the Third Age of the Church, that solemnly obliged themselves to keep their Virginity all their Life-time. All Christians forbore to eat of any Meat that was Strangled, or Blood, or things offered to Idols, which were called Idolothyta. They fasted with great rigour before Easter, some a longer, and others a shorter space, according to the different Customs of Churches: Besides this, they ordinarily fasted every Wednesday and Friday, till Three a Clock in the Afternoon only, and many of them spent these Days in Pray∣ers, which they called their Stations. They likewise fasted and mortified themselves in Times of Publick Calamities, and when they were in the rank of Penitents. They were of Opinion, That it was unlawful to fast on Sundays, and from E••ster to Whitsuntide. They buried the Bodies of the Deceased in the Earth, and did not approve of the Custom of those that burnt them.

These are the Principal Points of the Discipline of the Ancient Church, which I have collected with all the brevity and exactness that was possible. But no body ought to conclude from what has been said here, that all these things were practised in all Churches, and in all Times of the Three first Centuries. Some began to be used but in the Third Age, and others were only observed in some par∣ticular Churches. After all, it must be confessed, That the Discipline of the Church has been so ex∣tremely different, and so often altered, that it is almost impossible to say any thing positively con∣cerning it.

An Abridgment of the Morality.

THE Morality of the Gospel has been as immutable as its Doctrine, but it has moreover this Advantage, that though there have been abundance of lewd, wicked Christians in the World, * 1.554 who lived in a manner contrary to the Rules of the Evangelick Morality; yet there were never any Persons to be found in all Antiquity, so rash as to overthrow the Rules of this Morality, and to establish Maxims opposite to it; for, there wasscarce ever any dispute in the Church, or any different Sentiments about the Questions of Morality. They followed the Precepts of the Gospel according to the Letter, and exhorted all the Faithful to imitate the Life of Jesus Christ, as a Model of what they were to observe. I should never have done, if I should endeavour to heap together all the Principles or Heads of Mo∣rality, that are to be found in the Authors of the Three first Ages: It is sufficient to say, that they not only carried the Professors of Christianity to observe the Precepts of the Decalogue and the Natu∣ral Law, but that they likewise recommended to them, the embracing the Perfection of the Christian Morality. They maintained, that the most agreeable Sacrifice that could be offered to God, was to

give him a contrite Heart; that it was necessary to love him above all things, in order to be just; that those that were influenced only by a Principle of servile fear, were not really upright; that we ought to die, and suffer all Punishments imaginable, rather than be guilty of any thing, that might give the World occasion to believe, that we have renounced or despised the Doctrine of Jesus Christ; that we ought to love our Neighbour as our self, and assist and help him; to wish ill to no body, to render Good for Evil, and Pray for those that Persecute us. They exhorted the Faithful to give large Alms, to visit the Poor, to comfort the Sick, and those that were Imprisoned upon the account of Reli∣gion. They recommended it to the Consideration of those Christians that were Rich and Powerful, to employ the Superfluities of their Fortune in these indispensible Duties, and to use the World with∣out being Wedded to it; They taught them, that they were obliged not only to avoid Criminal Plea∣sures, such as Debauchery, and those that were dangerous, such as the publick Shows and Comedies, but also all unprofitable Pleasures that had no other end but the mere entertainment of the Senses; that they ought to content themselves with what was necessary, without a sollicitous pursuit and search after those things that served only for Pleasure or Luxury: That Christian Women ought to be extremely Modest in their Garb and Dress. They commanded all Persons of whatsoever Condi∣tion, to be Obedient to all Emperours, Magistrates and Secular Powers. They exhorted Wives, to love their Husbands, Husbands to cherish their Wives, Children to obey their Fathers and Mo∣thers, and Parents to have a Care of their Children, and reprehend them without bitterness; they ad∣monished the Faithful to be submissive to their Pastors, and the Pastors to have a great deal of Charity and Zeal for their Flock.

In a word, They prescribed all the Rules and Holy Maxims of the Gospel to the Observation of Christians, and exhorted them to lead a Life conformable to them. But what is most to be admired, this excellent System of Morality was not only to be found in the Writings of the First Christians; but it appeared and glittered in their Lives and Actions. We say not great things, says one of these Ancients, but we live them. Non eloquimur magna, sed vivimus.

The End of the First Volume.

Notes

• a 1.1

  EDessa.] This is a famous City, situated be∣yond the River Euphrates, between Syria and Mesopotamia.
• b 1.2

  Named Agbarus.] Others read Abgarus, and he is so called in some ancient Medals; but it is writ∣ten Agbarus in the most correct Manuscripts, and it is pronounced so in Arabick.
• * 1.3

  The Letters of Jesus Christ and Agbarus.
• c 1.4

  That Jude the Apostle, who is also called Tho∣mas] Thomas the Apostle was not sirnamed Jude, but Didymus, and Jude the Apostle was not called Thomas; which is a farther Proof of the Falshood of this History.
• * 1.5

  Letters of the Virgin Mary.
• * 1.6

  Counterfeit Gospels.
• a 1.7

  QUoted by St. Clemens.] Stromat. Lib. 3. pag. 452. St. Clement cites an Expression of Jesus Christ to Salome, taken from this Gospel: I am come to destroy the Works of the Woman, and by the Woman he understands Concupiscence. Moreover, in pag. 465, after having produced another passage on the same subject, cited by the Heretick Cassianus, he replies, first, that it is not found in the four Gospels that are ac∣knowledged by us, and afterward endeavours to apply a good sense to it.
• b 1.8

  By St. Epiphanius.] Haeres. 26. The Valenti∣nians likewise made use of this Gospel.
• c 1.9

  By Hegesippus.] In Eusebius, Lib. 4. chap. 22.
• d 1.10

  By St. Ignatius.] In this Epistle to the Inha∣bitants of Smyrna, where he cites two passages that are observed by St. Jerome; the first is, In carne eum post Resurrectionem vidi, & scioesse; I saw him in the flesh after his Resurrection, and I know that he is. The second is this, Palpate, quia non sam daemonium incorporale; Handle me, and you shall perceive that I am not a phantom without a body.
• e 1.11

  By St. Clement.] Stromat. Lib. 2. pag. 380. where we read this Sentence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.12

  Wherein he produceth a considerable fragment.] It is a passage that contains the Answer of Jesus Christ to the rich young Man mention'd in St. Mark's Gos∣pel, chap. 10. and in St. Luke, chap. 18. expressed in other words. Moreover Origen in his Eleventh Tome upon St. John, cites another passage of this Gospel, wherein the Holy Ghost is call'd the Mother of Christ.
• g 1.13

  St. Jerome quotes it very often in his Catalog. Voce Ignat. & voce Jacobus, Lib. 2. in Matth. chap. 7. and 12. Lib. 3. contra Pelagianos.
• h 1.14

  The History of a Woman accused before Jesus Christ.] Eusebins, in Hist. Lib. 3. declares, that the History of the Adulterous Woman was recorded in this Gospel. Moreover St. Jerome affirms, that it was related there∣in, that Jesus Christ appear'd to St. James, who had bound himself with an Oath not to eat, until he had seen our Saviour risen from the dead; and in his Third Book against the Pelagians, he informs us, that it was written in this Gospel, that the Mother of our Lord, and of St. John the Baptist spoke to him thus: John the Baptist baptizeth for the remission of sins, let us go and be baptized; and that Jesus Christ replied to them, have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized?
• i 1.15

  This Book is full of idle Tales and frivolous Rela∣lations.] Here's a Specimen of the Fables contain'd in the Protevangelium Jacobi. Joachim was elected a∣mong the Nations of the Twelve Tribes, Renben admo∣nished him, that it was not lawful for him to offer sa∣crifice, because he had no incense, whereupon he retir'd for grief into the Wilderness, and fasted there 40 days. Anne mourned, and her Servant Judith advis'd her to take a Laurel Tree: therefore she went into a Garden, where she lamented, that she was not like unto a Bird that had a Nest in the Laurel Tree. The Angel appear'd unto her, and told her, that she should have a Son; This Angel descended and delivered the same thing to Joa∣chim; he beheld himself in the Plate, or in the Ephod of the High-Priest, and saw not that he had sinned. The Virgin was able to go when she was six months old; she was bred up by Angels in the Temple; she was Married to Joseph, because a Dove flew out of a little Staff, that was given to him by the High-Priest. St. Joseph having perceived that she was with Child, caused her to drink the Water of Jealousie according to the Law, &c.
• k 1.16

  Is equally full of fables.] Here's another Spe∣cimen of the Fables received in the Gospel of Nico∣demus. •…•…re sent for him by a Massenger, this Mas∣senger worshipped him; all the Soldiers did so he like 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against their wi•…•… and the ••nsign•• ••••••ed them∣selves twice before him. The History of the Evange∣lists is i•…•…'d with divers fables. Jesus Christ is made to answer Pilate's Question. What is Truth? Ni∣codemus is represented speaking as also those whom our Saviour had healed: and the Woman that was cured of the issue of Blood is called Ver••nica. Moreover the Author of this Gospel describes the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, adding many things concerning him; he introduceth the dead that were raised at his Resur∣rection, entertaining one another with absurd and im∣pertinent Discourses, declaring, that they made the sign of the Cross, he introduces the Devil reasoning very ridiculously concerning our Saviours descent in∣to Hell; And lastly, he feigns, that after his Resur∣rection, Pilate having commanded the Jewish. Books to be brought to him, they acknowledged that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and rehearseth several other Tales of the like nature.
• * 1.17

  Counterfeit Acts of the Apostles, and false Revelati∣ons.
• a 1.18

  PHilastr. Haeres. 48. Epiph. 47. and St. Aug. Lib. de fide contra Manich.
• b 1.19

  In Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: This might ad∣mit divers significations, but St. Epiphanius deter∣mines it to signifie an Account of St. Paul's being lifted up to Heaven. It contained abstruse Matters, and seemed to be the same with the Secrets or Revela∣tion of St. Paul. St. Augustin quotes this Book in Joan. Tract. 98.
• * 1.20

  St. Paul's Letter to the Laodi∣ceans.
• a 1.21

  INserted in some German Bibles.] It was publi∣shed in Latin by Pistorus, and afterwards an∣nexed to the German Bibles printed at Ausburg, Worines, and Amsterdam; [Particularly in those Bibles which Eli••s Hutterus set out in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Ger∣man, in Quarto.]
• b 1.22

  Whether this be the same as that which was used when St. Jerome lived.] That which gives occasion to doubt, whether this Epistle be the same with that which was published heretofore, is that Philastrius affirms in chap. 88. That that which was extant in his time contained several Errors; and there are none in that which we now have. Moreover, that which is cited by St. Epiphanius was composed out of seve∣ral Sentences of the Epistle to the Ephesians.
• c 1.23

  That which we now have in our possession doth not appertain to St. Paul.] It is not conformable to the Style of St. Paul; it is extremely concise, even shor∣ter than that to Philemon, neither hath it any one par∣ticular Subject.
• a 1.24

  THat is to say, the Son of Consolation.] In Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Son of Conso∣lation, or of Exhortation. Oecumenius on the Acts, chap. 36. and Notkerus in his Martyrology follow the first Interpretation; but St. Jerom seems to embrace the later.
• b 1.25

  A Native of the Isle of Cyprus.] This Island of Cyprus was full of Jews, and a very great number of them were massacred therein under the Reign of the Emperor Trajan, according to the Testimony of Di••, Eusebius, and Or••sius.
• * 1.26

  The Epistle of St. Bar∣nabas.
• c 1.27

  Some of the ancient Writers.] Those are St. Clemens Alex Stromat. lib. 2. Euseb. Hist. lib. 1. chap. 12. and lib. 2. chap. 1. St. Epiphan. Tom. 1. contra Haeres. & Dorothaeus. But venerable Bede rejects their opinion, because St. Luke in the 4th Chapter of the Acts de∣clares, That Barnabas was one of those that laid the Price of the Lands, and other Possessions that were then sold, at the Apostle's Feet; for though this doth not absolutely hinder, but that he might have been one of the Disciples of Jesus Christ; yet St. Luke seems thereby to infinuate, that this was the beginning of his Conversion to Christianity.
• d 1.28

  By St. Clemens Alexandrinus.] Stromat. lib. 2. p. 373, 375, 389, 396, and 410. Lib. 5. p. 571, 572. 577, and 578.
• e 1.29

  Origen.] Lib. 1. Con. Celsum; and Lib. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and Eusebius, lib. 3. Hist. c. 25. Lib. 6. c. 13. and c. 14. Tertullian in his Book De Pudicitiâ tells us, That St. Barnabas's Epistle was more generally recei∣ved by the Catholick Church than the Pastor. But he takes St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written by St. Barnabas.
• f 1.30

  In the Rank of Apocryphal Books.] Eusebius divides the Apocryphal Books into three Ranks, the first contain those that come nearest to the Canonical Writings, that is to say, those that are rejected by some, and received by others as Canonical, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the second are comprehended those Books that are not allowed as Canonical by any; but such as were not forged by Hereticks, as those are that belong to the third Rank. The Epistle of St. Barnabas ought to be reckoned a∣mong the first of these sorts, at least among the se∣cond; which, although Apocryphal, may neverthe∣less belong to those to whom they are attributed, as the Book of the Pastor, and others. And although St. Jerom declares in his Epistle to Laeta, that those Books are Apocryphal, that do not belong to the Au∣thors whose Name they bear, yet he too often makes use of this Term in another signification. Now that Eu∣sebius and St. Jerom believed that the Epistle of St. Barnabas was written by him, appears from hence that they constantly impute it to him; Euseb. lib. 6. chap. 13. Item ex Barnabae, Clementis, & Judae Epi∣stolis. It is certain, that he judged that the Epistles of St. Clement and St. Jude were really composed by those whose Names they bear; and in another place, Judae Epistolam intelligo, item Barnabae Epistolam, & Revelationem quae dicitur Petri. Where he makes a particular Mark on this last Book, viz. That it is a∣scribed to St. Peter, but he doth not declare the same thing with respect to the Epistle of St. Barnabas; on the contrary, he barely affirms, that it is his, as the Epistle of St. Jude belongs to St. Jude. St. Jerom likewise speaks expresly to the same effect; Barnabas unam aedificationem Ecclesiae continentem Epistolam com∣posuit, quae inter Apocryphas numeratur. Which plain∣ly shews, that he did not believe it to be Apocryphal, because of its being falsly attributed to St. Barnabas, since on the contrary he himself imputes it to him, in affirming that it is Apocryphal.
• g 1.31

  That they were great Sinners.] Thus the fol∣lowing Words ought to be interpreted. Super omne peccatum peccatores. Many very devout Persons have often used this Phrase, I am the greatest Sinner that ever lived in the World, and other Expressions of the like nature, which are not to be understood Literally.
• h 1.32

  Was first published in Greek, &c.] It is said, that there was an older Edition than Menardus's prin∣ted in England by the order of the Learned Usher, but that the whole Impression was burnt. We may add to these, another Edition of this Epistle published by Maderus in Germany at Helmstadt. [There have been two other Editions of this Epistle, one at Oxon 1685. in Duodecimo, wherein all that is in the old Latin Ver∣sion that is not in the Greek, as also all that is in the Greek that is not in the old Version, is printed with Red Letters: Lastly, Mr. Le Moyne has set it out in his Vari•• Sacra with large Comments at Leyden, in Quarto, 1685.]
• * 1.33

  The Litur∣gies of the Apostles.
• a 1.34

  BY all those that have written concerning Litur∣gies.] Gregorius Papa. Lib. 7. Ep. 63. ad Joan. Syracus. Mos Apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo Orationem Dominicam, oblationis Hostiam consecrarent. Walafridus Strabo de Reb. Eccles. Cap. 21. Quod nunc agimus multiplici orationum, cantilenarum, & conse∣crationum officio, totum hoc Apostoli, & post ipsos, ut cre∣ditur, proximi orationibus, commemoratione Passionis Do∣minica, ficut ipse praecepit, agebant, simpliciter profici∣ente de hinc Religione amplius acta sunt à Christi culto∣ribus Officia Missarum. Remigius Altissiodorensis de Celeb. Miss. Lib. 1. Nam Missam B. Petrus Apostolus primus omnium Antiochiae dicitur celebrâsse, in quâ tres tantummodò orationes in initio fidei proferebantur, inci∣pientes ab eo loco ubi dicitur; Hanc igitur oblationem: See Stephan. Augustodun. de Sacramento Altaris, cap. 20. Benno. Aug. de Offi. Miss. c. 1. Rupert. Tuit. Lib. 2. de divi. Off. c. 1. Hug. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de S. Victor. de Divi. Lib. 2. Cap. 11. Honorat. Augustod. in Gemm. An. Lib. 1. Durand. de Mende Rat. Off. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. Radul∣phus Tongrens. de Canon. Observat. S. Antonin. in Summ. Maj. Tit. 13. Cap. 5. Cassand. de Liturg. c. 18. Polydore Virgil, and others that have treated of Rituals, and of the Ceremonies of the Mass.
• * 1.35

  Of the Apo∣stles Creed.
• a 1.36

  RUffinus.] In Exposit. Symboli: Isidore, lib. 2. de Off. c. 22.
• b 1.37

  Every one of the Apostles pronounc'd his Article.] This is the opinion of the Author of the 115th Sermon, De Tempore apud Aug. Of St. Leo, Ep. 13. now 27. Of Venant. Foretunat. in Exegesi Symb. Apost.
• c 1.38

  Some determine that it was, that they might be all sound unanimously to agree in one and the same Doctrine.] The former opinion is maintained by Ruffinus, and the later by the modern Authors.
• d 1.39

  The Etymology of the Word Symbol, is yet more uncertain.] The Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, properly sig∣nifies a Note, Sign, or Mark; therefore the Mystical Signs and Notes of Pythagoras were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Herodian uses the Word to denote a Military Signal. Other Authors, as Dion Cassius, and Suetonius, apply it to signifie Signs or Marks, and certain Tickets that were given to those that were to be admitted to publick Shews, and for the distribution of Largesses. Some say, that the Word Symbolum among the Latins signifies an Entertainment, where every one pays his Club, or even the Club it self; But this does not be∣long to the Neuter Symbolum, but to the Feminine Symbola, and in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as may be seen in Ari∣stophanes's Scholiast, in Athenaeus and Plutarch; therefore it ought to be read in Terence's Andria, Symbolam dedit, and not Symbolum. Aulus Gellius, lib. 6. c. 1. makes use of the Word Symbola to signifie one Man's share in a Reckoning, and declares, that this Term was also at∣tributed to those Questions that were Expounded by Taurus the Philosopher in the Presence of divers Per∣sons. St. Cyprian is the first that applied the Word Symbol to denote an Epitome or Abridgment of the Christian Faith. Ep. 45. Optatus calls the Hereticks, The Deserters of the true Symbol, alluding to a Milita∣ry Signal. And, and to the same effect, St. Chrysologus, in Hom. 62. declares, That the Symbol is the Covenant that we make with God in Baptism.
• e 1.40

  The distinguishing Mark and Character of Chri∣stians.] This Etymology is produced by Maximus Tau∣rinensis, and Venantius Fortunatus. It hath been like∣wise observed by Ruffinus, Isidorus Hispalensis, lib. 2. de Off. c. 22. and Durandus de Mende, lib. 4. Rationalis, c. 25. But the second and third Etymology are more com∣mon; and the last is maintained by Ruffinus; S. Aug. Serm. 181. de Tempore; Isidore, lib. 2. div. Off. c. 22. Rabanus Maurus, lib. 2. Init. Clerical. cap. 56. Duran∣dus supra: Eucherius, Homil. de Symb. and Innocent. III. lib. 2. De Sacris Missae Mysteriis, c. 49. The first how∣ever is the most probable.
• f 1.41

  As many Creeds as Authors.] St. Irenaeus exhi∣bits a Creed, l. 1. c. 2. and another in lib. 2. c. 1. Ter∣tullian made use of three different Creeds in three seve∣ral places, In praescript. lib. contra Praxeam, & de Vir∣ginibus velandis. See Origen. lib. 1. Peri Arch. & in Dialog. contra Marc. Optat. lib. 1. All which Creeds are different from the Vulgar.
• * 1.42

  The Epistle of St. Bar∣nabas.
• g 1.43

  And a great number of other Authors.] S. Irenae∣us. lib. 1. cap. 2. Tertullian, de Prascript. c. 37. & 13. de vel. Virg. c. 1. Lucifer, lib. 2. contra Const. Hier. Ep. ad Pammach. St. Ambrose, Ep. 7. lib. 1. As also, Ruffinus in Expos. Symboli, Aug. Serm. 115. Maximus, St. Leo, Fortunatus, &c.
• * 1.44

  Apostolical Canons and Constituti∣ons.
• a 1.45

  DIverse things that never were, nor indeed could be established by the Apostles.] In the first Canon it is Decreed, that a Bishop should not be Ordained but by two or three Bishops; whereas it is certain, that in the time of the Apostles one single Bishop was sufficient to Ordain another. In the third it is determined, that the First-Fruits should be so presented to the Bishop and Priest, as that they should be brought immediately to them, and not offered on the Altar. In the fourth it is provided, that Oil and Incense only should be offered on the Altar. Now it is not probable, that any such things were offered in the time of the Apostles. In the fifth Canon it is ordained that the Feast of Easter should not be cele∣brated after the Jewish manner: If this had been de∣termined by the Apostles, the Controversy between Victor and the Asiaticks might have been easily deci∣ded; but it was not, and Victor only alledg'd the Tradition of his Ancestors: In like manner the 21. Canon against those that made themselves Eunuchs would have been produced by Demetrius against Ori∣gen, and Origen's action would not have been justified by Alexander and Theoctistus, if there had been then extant a Canon of the Apostles, that had so precisely forbidden it. In the 34th and 35th Canons mention is made of the right of Metropolitans, and of the di∣stinction of Bishopricks, which were not fixed at that time. In the 50th Canon it is decreed, that he that did not baptize or dip a Child twice in the Water should be deposed; This practice, though very anci∣ent, is later than the Apostolical times. The 52d is against the Errors of the Montanists and Novatians. The 60th is against Books forged by the Hereticks af∣ter the death of the Apostles. And the 66th is against the Sabbatical Fast. The 69th regulates fasting in Lent. In the following Canons are contained several Injunctions concerning Oil, Vessels of Gold and Sil∣ver, and Vails consecrated in Churches, things that were not known in the time of the Apostles. The last Canon comprehends a Catalogue of Sacred Books which could not be written by the Apostles. In the 45th, 46th, and 47th Canons the Baptism of Hereticks is rejected as null and void. This question was not resolved by the Apostles. Moreover the style of these Canons is not like the Apostles; and the matter is very different from that which was usually treated by them; neither were the names of Clerk, Bishop, Altars, Sacrifice, &c. so common in the Apostolical times.
• b 1.46

  Questions that were not debated until many years after their death.] Viz. The questions relating to the Feast of Easter, the Baptism of Hereticks, as also concerning those that make themselves Eunuchs; those that would not admit Sinners to repentance; those that fast on Sundays, &c. Vide supra.
• c 1.47

  To induce us to believe that they were actually composed by the Apostles.] As for Example in the 29th Canon, where it is ordained, that those Bishops that should obtain the Episcopal Dignity by Money, should be deposed, as Simon was by St. Peter; he hath added by me Peter. For these words are not found in the Epistle of Tarasius to Pope Adrian, nor in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus. Moreover in the 5th Canon, we read at present the Lord hath declared unto us; whereas in the Greek Manuscripts, and in the Edition of Zonaras and Balsamon, it is simply expressed, the Lord hath declared; and in that of Jo∣annes Antiochenus, Our Lord hath declared. Lastly in the 82d Canon there is this expression, as our Brother Onesimus, and in the last, our Acts, where it ought to be read simply as in the Arabick Paraphrase, as O∣nesimus, and the Acts of the Apostles.
• d 1.48

  I am apt to believe that no person was more ca∣pable of performing this Artifice.] It is suitable to the temper of this Author, who designed to pass every where for a Disciple of the Apostles; for which rea∣son he has given us divers Constitutions under their name, attributing to every Apostle some particular Constitutions and Liturgies, at the end whereof he annexed these Canons with the above-mentioned ad∣ditions; and he likewise adds in the name of the A∣postles: This is what we thought fit to command you O ye Bishops, continue to observe these things.
• e 1.49

  They are often cited.] In the first Canon of the Council of Nice, the second of the Apostles is alled∣ged, concerning those that make themselves Eunuchs, and in the fifth Canon of the same Council, the 12th and 32d is cited relating to Excommunication. In the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch the 34th is quoted concerning the Metropolitan; in the 20th Canon of the same, the 10th about Excommunicati∣on; in the 21st Canon, the 14th prohibiting Bishops to leave their Diocesses; and in the 23d Canon the 76th, that a Successor. ought not to be elected. In the Synod of Constantinople convened in the year 394, the 14th Apostolical Canon is quoted, of the Juris∣diction of Bishops. In the Council of Ephesus, Acts 7. col. 788. we find the 35th cited concerning Ordi∣nations; and in Act. 1. the 74th is alledged relating to the three Admonitions that ought to precede Ec∣clesiastical Censure. Moreover Alexander in Theodoret, lib. 1. c. 4. cites the 12th, as also Athanasius, Epist. ad omnes Orthodoxos, where he likewise alludes to the 29th, 30th, and 75th Canons. The 34th is alledged by Arsenius, in like manner the 30th, 35th, and 81st are quoted by Pope Julius in his Epistle. St. Basil in the 43d Canon plainly cites the 24th of the Apostles, under the name of an ancient Canon; in the 12th Canon the 77th concerning Bigamy; and in the first the 47th relating to the Baptism of Hereticks. Last∣ly Theodotius in Cod. Lib. 3. de summâ Trinitate quotes the 17th under the name of an Apostolical Canon.

  M. Daillé replies, that all these Quotations do not relate to the Apostolical Canons, but to the Disci∣pline, Customs, and Traditions that proceeded from the Apostles; however this answer hath no probabili∣ty; for the word Canon signifies written Laws, and the Council of Nice distinguisheth Canons from Cu∣stoms, which are therein called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. More∣over M. Daillé adds, that certain Canons and ancient Laws are often cited that are not included in the A∣postolical, and he produceth two Examples, the first whereof is taken from the 13th Canon of the Nicene Council, and the 2d from the 21st of that of Ancyra. But first, the Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Canons are not cited by name in these two, but only in the first an ancient and Canonical Law or Custom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the second, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an ancient definition. Secondly, nothing hinders but that these words may be understood of some ancient defi∣nitions of Synods; as for example, the Law wherein it was ordained to receive the Lapsi at the point of death, cited in the first Canon, was made in the Ea∣stern and African Churches before the Council of Nice, if we may give credit to the Testimony of Dio∣nysius Alexandrinus in Ep. ad Stephanum, produced by Eusebius, Lib. 7. chap. 4. and 5.
• f 1.50

  They are of no force against ours.] However, some of the most material of M. Daillé's Reasons may be objected to us; for instance, he affirms that St. Athanasius in the matter of Leontius the Eunuch, cites the Canon of the Council of Nice, and not the Apostolical, which shews (says he) that it was not as yet known: Moreover, that it is not quoted by St. Epiphanius against the Valesian Hereticks: That St. Basil reckons the triple immersion in Baptism a∣mongst the unwritten Traditions, and consequently, that the Canon of the Apostles in which it is ordai∣ned, was not composed in the time of this Father: That this Canon was made against those Hereticks that Baptized with a single Immersion, and that the Euno∣mians were the first that followed this practice. These are the Arguments of M. Daillé that can be urged a∣gainst us, but it is very easie to refute them. St. A∣thanasius cites the Apostolical Canon rather than that of Nice. St. Epiphanius produceth no Canon against the Valesians; but only the Holy Scripture. St. Basil and the other Fathers understand by unwritten Tradition all those matters that are not contained in the Sacred Writings. Lastly, the Canon concerning triple Immersion was not made against Hereticks, but to prevent the negligence of Priests. The 84th Ca∣non might indeed be objected with much more pro∣bability, wherein we find the Books of the Maccabees, together with the Epistles and Constitutions of St. Cle∣ment among the Canonical Writings. But it must be replied to this Objection, that this Canon is cor∣rupted, that the Books of the Maccabees are not ex∣tant in the Greek Copy of Joannes Antiochenus, and it may easily be discerned, that the Epistles and Constitutions of St. Clement, have been added by the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, who endea∣voured to pass for St. Clement, to raise the reputation of this Book. It may be proved that this Canon is ancient, because the Books of the Old Testament that were not inserted in the Canon of the Jews, and the Revelation are omitted. Lastly, It is asserted against us, that these Canons were unknown to the Authors of the Fifth Century, that they are not cited by Eusebius, nor included in the C••dex Canonum of the Catholick Church; but all these Objections are frivolous, for the Ecclesiastical Writers of the fourth Age have often referred to these Canons. Eusebius indeed hath nor mentioned them, but neither doth he take notice of the Canons of the Nicene Council and in fine it is not to be wondred at that they are not found in the Code of the universal Church, which did not contain all the ancient Canons, no more than that of the African Church comprehended those that were made by St. Cy∣prian or Agrippinus.
• g 1.51

  A great number of Absurdities and mistakes of time, together with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Er•••••• that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contained there∣in.] As in Book 1. That the Beards of Women ought to be shaved, and not those of Men. In Book 2. Chap. 1. That all Bishops ought to be 50 years old. In Chap. 57. it is ordained, That the Gospel according to St. John should be read; which was not written un∣til the 97th year of our Lord, after the death of the Apostles. In Chap. 1••. the Author asserts, That the Bi∣shop presides over Kings and Magistrates; and in Book 3. Chap. 2. That third Marriages are an Intempe∣rance, and the fourth a manifest Debauchery. In Book 6. Chap. 6. mention is made of the Ebionites, whose Errors sprang up after the decease of the Apostles. In the 14th Chapter, James the Son of Zebedee is intro∣duced as present at Jerusalem after the time of his death. In Book 8. Chap. 4. it is declared, That the Constitu∣tions were made in the presence of St. Paul and the Seven Deacons; now it is certain, that St. Ste∣phen, one of the said Seven Deacons, died before the Conversion of St. Paul. In Book 1. Chap. 32. Female Slaves are permitted to suffer themselves to be deflowred by their Masters. Moreover this Author is accused of Arianism.
• h 1.52

  Neither are they maintained at present by any.] This Synod is unknown to St. Luke, and to all the an∣cients; for although it is said to be cited by Innocent I. Ep. 18. it is a mistake, since he only mentions the Council of Jerusalem; and whereas it is written, An∣tiochenam Ecclesiam quae meruit apud se celeberrimum Apostolorum Conventum. The Church of Antioch, which deservedly had the most famous Convention of the Apo∣stles celebrated there, it ought to be read propter se, near that City; for it is apparent, that this Pope spake concerning the Synod of Jerusalem, which was the most famous Convention of the Apostles. Moreover, not so much as one of the ancient Authors makes men∣tion of these Canons, and indeed they are altoge∣ther absurd: It is said in the first, that the Christians were called Galileans, a name that was not attributed to them until after the death of the Apostles. In the third Canon it is decreed, that the Christians should live Anagogically, a harsh and insignificant Term. In the 9th Canon the Synagogue is called Belluine; and in the 8th it is ordained, that there should be Images in the Churches, a practice that was not in use in the time of the Apostles. This Canon is cited by Grego∣rius Pessinuntius in the second Council of Nice, but it is well known that many Apocryphal Records were alledged in that Council.
• * 1.53

  Prochorus, Linus, Ab∣dias, &c.
• a 1.54

  MEntioned by St. Augustin, Philastrius, &c.] St. Aug. lib. de Fide contr. Manichaeos. Phi∣lastr. lib. de Haeres. N. 40. Innocentii I. Epist. ad Ex∣up. Gelasius in conc. Roman.
• * 1.55

  Sibyls.
• a 1.56

  COnsisted of two Greek words.] These two words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the Aeolick Dialect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lactantius Lib. 1. c. 6. Hierom. Lib. 1. in Jovin. It is objected against this Etymology that the Adjective 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Three last Syllables whereof com∣pose a Dactyl, make it manifest that the word Sibylla cannot be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.57

  From an obsolete Latin Adjective.] This Adje∣ctive is Sibus, which according to Festus signifies the same as Acutus, or Callidus; a quick, or crafty Man.
• c 1.58

  Nothing is so uncertain as the Number and Names of the Sibyls.] Pl••t•• in his Ph••dr••s mentions but one S••••yl, neither doth he declare to what place she appertained. The Author of the Book de Mir••∣bilibus Auscult••tionibus in Arist••tle speaks of her of Cum••. Diodorus Siculus Lib. 4. gives an Account of her of Delph••s, affirming that she was named D••phne, and was the Daughter of Tire••••••••; but Virgil, P••usa∣nias and Suidas call her by the Name of M••nt••, and St. Clement, by that of Arte••is. Di••••ysius H••lic••rn••s∣s••us, Pliny, Juve••al, &c. mention but one Sibyl: However it doth not follow, that they knew no o∣thers. Str••bo Lib. 13. and 17. assures us, that there were two at Eryth••••, and that the Second called A∣then••is lived in the time of Alexander the Great. Stephanus de Urbibus and Capella, Lib. 2. de N••p••ii•• Philol••giae reckon likewise two, Er••phile a Native of Troy, who came to Cuma, and Symmachia of the City of Erythr••. Soli••••s in Polyhi••t. c, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. produceth three, the Delphick named E••iphile, who was more ancient than Homer, the Erythr••••n, and the C••••••••. Aeli•••• Var. Hist. Lib. 2. c. 35. reckon Ten, the Erythr••••••, the Samian, the Egyptian, the Sardia••, the Cu••an, the Jewish and four others. St. Clement, Str••mat. Lib. 1. M••nt•• (says he) and a multitude of Sibyls; the Samian, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Th••ssalian, the Thes∣pr••tick, &c. Lactantius in Lib. 1. recites Ten after Varro: The first is that of P••••s•••• mentioned by Nica∣ner, who wrote the History of Alexander the Great: The second of Lybia, cited by E••••ipides. 3. The Delphick alledged by Chrys••ppus, in Lib. de Divin••ti••∣ne. 4. The Cu••an in Italy, whom N••vius and Pis•• mention, the former in his History of the Pu••ick War, and the later in his A••••als. 5. The Erythr••••n, whom Ap••ll••d••rus Erythr••us affirms to have lived in his City. 6. The S••mi••••, concerning whom Erat••sthe∣nes hath written. 7. The Cuman, called by some Amalthaea, and by others Dem••phile, or Her••phile. 8. The Hel••sp••nti••k born in the Countrey about ••r••y, and in the Town of Marpess••••. 9. The Phrygian, who Prophesied at Ancyr••. 10. The Tiburti•••• named Albunea, who uttered her Oracles at Tybur, near the River Ani•• now called il Tevero••e, at the bottom whereof it is reported, that her Statue was found hol∣ding a Book in her hand. Isidore hath followed the Catalogue of Lactantius, but Suidas reckons up Twelve: Some with Pausanias, confound the Erythrae••n with the Delphick, the Phrygian, the Samian, and the Co∣loph••nian. Others as Capella, and the Author de Mi∣rab. Auscult••t. joyn the Cuman, and the Erythraean. St. Justin makes no Distinction between the Babyloni∣an and the Cuman; according to the Opinion of some, the Per••ick is the most ancient, others attribute the greatest Antiquity to the Cuman, and St. Clement to the Delphick.
• d 1.59

  Transported with Enthusiasm.] We need only read the Description, that is made by all the ancient Authors of the manner how the Sibyls uttered their Oracles: See Virgil in Ae••eid: Lucan▪ Cl••udian in Pa∣••egyrico H••n••rii Pl••t••••ch. de Orac. Pythiae, &c. It was so evident among the Heathens, that they were pos∣sessed, that they applyed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie, to Play the Mad-man, Diod. Lib. 4. Now this fury that deprived them of their Senses, cannot be esteemed as an Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but as an Effect of their being possessed with a Daemon, and intoxicated with the Exhalations of inflamed Choler; For in my Opinion, it is an Imagination without any Ground to affirm with St. Jerom, that they received the Gift of Prophecying from God, in recompence of their Virginity.
• e 1.60

  Wrote them on the Leaves of Trees.] Virgil, Aeneid. 6. F••liis tantum ne carmena m••nd••. Juvenal. Credite me f••lium recitare Sibylla.
• f 1.61

  Was offered by a certain Woman to Tarquinius.] This History is Recorded by many ancient Authors; some affirm, that those Books were Presented to Tar∣quinius S••••erb••s, and others, to Tarquinius Priscus. It is Reported, that the Woman who brought them had Nine Volumes, which she offered to Sell at a dear Rate, but perceiving that Tarqui•• would not give her what she required, she burnt Three of them; that afterwards having demanded as much for the o∣ther Six, as she had done for the Nine, and being re∣pulsed, she burnt Three more, when at last the King being astonished at her boldness, bought the Three that were left at the same Price that she had asked for the Nine: See Dionysius Halicarnass••••s. Antiquit. Lib. 4. Aulus Gellius and Lactantius. Pliny reckons but Three Books instead of Nine; and affirms, that Two of them were burnt.
• g 1.62

  As long as there were Pagan Emperors at Rome.] See Dio in Tiberius and Nero, Spartian in the Life of Adrian, Julius Capitolinus in that of Gordian. Trebellius Pollio, in that of Gallienus, and Vopiscus in that of Au∣relian. Aurelius Victor, Ammianus Marcellinus, Lib. 24. Zozim. Lib. 2. Procop. Lib. 1.
• h 1.63

  As the time in which they were written.] It is certain, that the Sibyls were ••ater than Moses, however the Author of this counterfeit Work affirms, that the Sibyl was in Noah's Ark, and nevertheless it is decla∣red in Book III, that these Oracles were written 1500 years after the Grecian Empire was Established. Now after whatsoever manner this may be understood, it follows that all these Predictions concerning the Jews and M••ses, are forged, since these 1500 years conti∣nue till the Destruction of Jerusalem. In Book V. we are informed by the Author, that he saw the se∣cond Ruin of the desirable House; which is plainly to be understood of the last Destruction of Jerusalem. He says in Book VIII. That after Trajan, intimated by the Letter T, one should Reign whose Name was to be taken from the Adriatick Sea, this is Adrian; and that after him Three should Govern at a time, that is to say, Antoni••••s, Marcus and Lucius, and that the last should obtain the Supreme Government▪ which shews that this was written at the beginning of the Reign of Mar•••••• Aurelius, or at the end of that of An∣toninus▪ for in regard that L••••ius was the youngest, it was natural to foretel that he should live longest.
• i 1.64

  The Style.] It appears, that he that counter∣feited these Books, was not really transported with En∣thusiasm, but only pretended to be so: The V••••ses of the Sibyls were obscure and without Order, where∣as these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not very Irregular: The Affairs of the Emperors are therein Historically digested, and not after a Prophetical manner▪ The style contains no∣thing of that Impetuosity and Enthusiasm that is eve∣ry where Conspicuous in the Expressions of the Sibyls, neither is it like that of Homer who took many Verses from those Prophetesses, if we may believe Diodorus: Moreover the Author of these Sibylline Books was illeterate; for he derives the Name of Ad••m from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in the Second Book he affirms, that the Four Let∣ters of his Name signifie the four Q•…•…s of the World; tho', in Hebrew and Chaldee, there are but three; he feigns that the Letters of the Name of God, Com∣pose the Number 1697. which is not true, unless it be written in Greek after a Barbarous manner; from the Name of JESUS, which he makes to consist of four Vowels, and two Consonants, he extracts the Number of 888 years, and from that of Rome 948. he vouches the Fables of the ••••••ans, as true Histories; Moreover he says, that the Mountain A•••••••••• is in Phrygia; that the River Eur••t is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epirus, and that Gog and Magog are Ethi••pians, which shews that this▪ Impostor was ignorant of the Hebrew T••••g••e▪ of Geo∣graphy and History, which we cannot say of the Sibyl.
• k 1.65

  And the things therein contai••••••.] There are certain Principles in these Books, that were not im∣bibed by any but the ancient Christians; the Author is of the Opinion of the Mill••naries, he believes Nero to be Anti-Christ, that the Souls of Men shall remain in Hell until the Resurrection, that the Fire of the Judg∣ment shall serve instead of Purgatory, that the Ter∣restrial Paradise shall be preserv'd, and that at last the wicked shall be delivered from Hell 〈◊〉〈◊〉: he likewise maintains divers other Opinions of the ancient Christi∣ans. Lastly, it cannot be doubted, but that the Accounts in these Books, of the Nativity, Life and Actions of Jesus Christ, have been taken from the History of the Evangelists: And indeed, the Prophets have said no∣thing that comes near the Pla••••ness, that appears in the Books of the Siby••s. I shall omit many other Reasons.
• l 1.66

  The Books of the Sibyls were never consulted a∣mong the Romans, without extracting from them some Superstitions perfectly Pagan.] See Livy in many places, Varro, de Ling. Lat. Lib. 5. Cicero in Verrina ult. Ta∣citus Lib. 15. Suetonius in Jul. Num. 97. Plin. Lib. 5. chap. 17. Solyn. Polyhist. Chap. 10. Val. Maxim. Lib. 1. Numb. 1, and 10. Plutarch in the Lives of Publicola, Fabius and Marius. Pausanias in Phocaicis. Capitoli∣nus in Gordiano. Trebellius Pollio in Galienis, and Vopiscus, in Aureliano & Floriano. Sext. Aurel. Victor in Claudio-Ammian. Marcellin. Lib. 22, and 23. Macrob. Saturnal. Lib. 1. chap. 17.
• m 1.67

  They began to appear about the end of the Reign of Antoninus Pius. Possevinus affirms, that these Books were written under the Reign of C••mmodus; but he is deceived in taking the Conflagration mentioned in Book V. for the Fire of the Temple of Vesta, that hap∣pened in the time of that Emperor, for the Temple of Jerusaleus is to be understood in this place, which is called the desirable House, and the Guardian Temple of God. We have already shewn, that the Author had seen Lucius and Marcus, but that he knew not the later Emperors. All the Fathers that have quoted the Sibylline Books, wrote either under the Reign of An∣toninus Pius, or after that time, Josephus indeed and Hermas cite the Sibyls, but in general Terms, and there were possibly some Verses extant under their Names, even in the time of Josephus, who produceth one of them concerning the Tower of Babel, Lib. 1. Ant. c. 5.
• n 1.68

  Sirnamed Trismegistus.] In Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Egyptians call him Thaaut; some affirm, that he was styled Trismegistus by the Grecians, because he was a great King, a great Priest, and a great Philosopher; others as Lactantius, that this Name was attributed to him, by reason of his incomparable Learning.
• o 1.69

  Mentioned by the most ancient Pagan Writers:] Plato in Phaedrus declares, that he invented the Chara∣cters of Letters together with Arts and Sciences. Cicero in Lib. 3. de Natura De••rum assures us, that he go∣verned the Egyptians, and that he gave them Laws and found out the Characters of their Writings; It is Re∣corded by Diodorus Siculus, that he taught the Greci∣ans the Art of discovering the Secrets of the Mind. And we are informed by Jamblichus, who quotes Ma∣netho and Scleucus, that he wrote above Thirty five thousand Volumes. St. Clemens Alexandrinus in Stromat. Lib. 6. makes mention of Forty two Books of this Author, and gives an Account of the Subject of some of them. The Works of Mercurius Trismegistus, are cited as favourable to the Christian Religion by the Author of the Exhortation to the Centiles, said to be St. Justin, by Lactantius in the Fourth Book of his Institutions, by St. Clement, in Lib. 1. Stromat. by St. Augustine, in Tract. de 5. Haeres. and in Lib. 8. De Civit. Dei, Chap. 23. by S. Gyril of Alexandria, in Lib. 1. contra. Julianum, and by many others.
• * 1.70

  Hystaspes, and Mercu∣rius Trisme∣gistus.
• p 1.71

  But it is certain that they cannot be his.] The Eternity and Divinity of the Word is clearly explained in the Poemander, and the Author of this Book attri∣butes to the Son, the quality of being Consubstantial with the Father; he declares, that he is the Son of God our God, who proceeds from the Intellect of the Father, and he makes use of the very words of the Septuagint, in describing the Creation of the World: he Discourseth of the Fall of the first Man. In short, he Copies out several passages of the Old and New Testament and follows the Principles of the Modern Platonick Philosophy. But the Book Entituled Ascle∣pius hath not quite so great a Tincture of Christiani∣ty: The Author Treats therein of Idolatry after an exquisite manner; he explains the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he Transcribes many things out of the Holy Scri∣ptures, and the Works of the Grecian Writers: Lastly, he foretels the Extirpation of the Egyptian Reli∣gion.
• * 1.72

  A Letter of Lentulus.
• * 1.73

  Pilaet's Letter.
• * 1.74

  Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca.
• q 1.75

  Are not written according to the style of St. Paul, nor in that of Seneca.] The style of those that are at∣tributed to Seneca is Barbarous, and full of words that are scarce Latin. The Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, do not suit with the Gravity of this Apostle, and con∣tain Complements rather than solid Instructions.
• r 1.76

  As it is related by Tacitus.] He informs us, that of Fourteen quarters of the City of Rome, there re∣mained but four entire, that there were three, the Houses whereof were wholly consumed, that very little was left in the other Seven, and that those that were left were half burnt.
• s 1.77

  The Date of these Letters is false.] One of them is Dated under the Consulate of Apri••nus and Capit••, that is, Vipsanius and Capit••, Five years before the burning of Rome, and the other under the Consulate of Phrygius and Bassus. But it was under the Consu∣late of Lecanius Bassus, and Li••inius Cr••ssus, that this Fire happened: And the Letter is Dated in March, whereas the Fire did not begin (according to the re∣port of Tacitus) till May following.
• t 1.78

  They contain nothing that is worthy of Seneca or of St. Paul.] There is scarcely one Moral Notion in those of Seneca, or one Christian Precept in those of St. Paul.
• u 1.79

  In a Matter of so little moment.] It is certain, that the Fathers have often cited Apocryphal and counter∣feit Books, as we have already shewn; Natalis Alexan∣der himself the Author of the Opinion, which we now confute, Confesses it, and on the very same Ac∣count rejects the Epistle of Jesus Christ to Abgarus, and that of Abgarus to Jesus Christ, that are more Autho∣rized by the ancient Writers than those Letters of Seneca.
• x 1.80

  But only that they were generally reputed so to be.] St. Jerom in Catalog. I reckon Seneca in the number of Ecclesiastical Authors, by reason of certain Letters which are read by many under the Name of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca. St. Aug. Ep. 14. now the 153. Seneca of whom certain Letters are read written to St. Paul. But in Lib. de Civit. Dei, Chap. 11. He declares that Seneca neither commended nor censured the Christians, and that he hath made no mention of them; therefore he did not believe that these Letters were his.
• y 1.81

  Which bears a great Analogy with that which we find in the 11th. Letter of Seneca to St. Paul.] Ac∣cording to St. Jerom; Optare se dicit servus ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos. ••n the 11th Letter of Seneca we find the following Ex∣pression. Cum sis vertex, & Alt issimorum montium ca∣c••men haud te indignum in prima facie Epistolarum no∣minandum censeas—nam qui meus tu••s apud te locus, qui tuus velim ut me••s. If apud tu••s were put in∣stead of apud te, these words would express S. Jerom's Sense; and they seem not to be capable of admitting any other; however it is evident, that he alludes to this place.
• * 1.82

  ••assage of Jose∣phus, con∣cerning Je∣sus Christ.
• * 1.83

  Biblioth. ••od. 238.
• a 1.84

  One of the most famous Books of Antiquity.] The Book of Hermas entituled The Pastor, hath been admitted by many Churches as Canonical. S. Irenaeus cites it under the Name of Scripture, Lib. 4. chap. 3. B••ne erg•• pronunciavit Scriptura quae dicit primò ••mnium cre∣••••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 De••s, &c. This Passage is found in the Pastor, Lib. 2. Mand. 1. Clemens Alexandrinus produceth several other Expressions, as taken from a Book of great Authority, Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 311, and 356. Lib. 2. p. 360, 379, 384, and 385. Lib. 4 p. 503. Lib. 6. p. 679. It is likewise cited by Origen as a Book of Holy Scripture, Homil. 10. in J••s. Homil. 1. in Psal. 37. Homil. 13. in Ezek. Lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, c. 3. Lib. 2. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Lib. 2. in Matth. c. 24. 42. t. 1. Com∣ment. in Joan••em, Lib. 10. in Ep. ad Rom. where he declares, that the same Hermas mentioned in this place of the Epistle of S. Paul, is the Author of the Pastor, item in Oseam, Phil••c••l. c. 8. Although he observes in other places, that it was not generally received in H••mil. 8. in Numb. Lib. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Philocal. c. 2. and Homil. 35. in Luc. It is reported by Eusebius, Lib. 3. ch. 3. that some reckoned it among the Cano∣nical Writings, and others in the number of good Ecclesiastical Books that were necessary for new Con∣verts, Lib. 3. c. 25. He placeth it amongst the Apo∣cryphal Books, and observes, Lib. 5. c. 8. that it is quoted by S. Irenaeus. St. Athanasius cites it in Lib. de Incarnat. Verbi, and in Lib. de Decret. Synodi Ni∣c••n••, p. 252. Edit. P••ris. 266. where he expresly de∣clares, that it is not included in the Canon. He quotes it again in his Epistle to the Bishops of Phrygia, p. 396. and in his Paschal Epistle he inserts it in the Catalogue of Books that are not Canonical. S. Jerom, in Lib. de Script••ribus, affirms, that it is a useful Book, but almost unknown to the Latins. In his Prologue, he placeth it in the rank of Books that are not Cano∣nical. In Comment. in Hoseam, c. 7. v. 9. he cites it, adding these words, Si cui tamen placet ejus reciper•• L••cti••n••••. In his first Book on Habakkuk, ad c. 1. v. 14. he calls it Apocryphal, and finds fault with a foolish Thought in the Book. Ruffinus on the Creed reckons it among the Ecclesiastical Books, though not Cano∣nical. It is cited by Cassian. Collat. 8. c. 12, 13, and 17. And S. Prosper rejects it as a Book of no Au∣thority. Ut nullius Autoritatis, contra Collat. c. 30. Ge∣l••sius inserts it in the List of Apocryphal Books. And lastly, Maximus cites it in Lib. 4. De divinis nomini∣bus. This shews, that notwithstanding its various fortune, it hath been always very famous.
• b 1.85

  To impute this Book to one Hermes, the Brother of Pope Pius I.] The Author of Dam••sus's Pontifical, Regin••, the Author of the Letter of Pope Pi•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. and some other modern Writers, are in this Error, and they seem to have taken it from the Author of the Poem against Marcion, who affirms, that Hermas, who wrote this Book, was the Brother of Pius; Post hunc deinde Pius, Hermas cui Germine frater Angelicus Pastor cui tradit•• verb•• locutus. But he calls him, Hermas and not Hermes; It is true indeed, that we find in the Version of Origen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made by Ruffinus, Lib. 1. c. 3. and Lib. 4. c. 2. Hermes instead of Hermas; but it is a fault of the Transcriber, for in the Greek Text of the last Fragment that is extant of the Phil••calia, it is read Hermas, and not Hermes; and Ruffinus himself in other places calls him Hermas. Moreover all the an∣cient Writers, as St. Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Euse∣bius, S. Jerom, and others above-mentioned, always call him Hermas, and never Hermes. Baronius and some others distinguish two Books, one written by Hermes the Brother of Pius, which Treated of Easter, and the other by our Hermas; but since they ground their Opinion only on the Authority of modern Writers, in attributing a Book to this pretended Hermes, a Person unknown to all Antiquity, their Conjecture seems to be without any probability.
• * 1.86

  Hermas.
• c 1.87

  It cannot be doubted that it hath been rejected by divers other Churches.] Origen acknowledgeth, that it was Thrown out of the Canon of Holy Scripture by many Christians; Turtullian, in Lib. de Pudiciti••, replies to certain Persons, who objected it to him, that this Book was rejected by divers Orthodox Churches. Eusebius, S. Athanasius, S. Jerom, and Ruffinus above-cited, reckon it among those Writings that are not Canonical, yet such as may be useful for the Instru∣ction of Christians; and Gelasius placeth it amongst the Apocryphal Books.
• d 1.88

  It hath been cited as a Book of great Authority.] Tertullian censures it, but after he turned M••ntanist, Origen observes that it was contemned by some Chri∣stians, but that he had a great Esteem for it. S. Jerom in one place accuseth it of Nonsense, but in others he commends it. S. Prosper throws it aside as a Book of no Authority; but it was because he scarce knew it.
• a 1.89

  St. Clement the Disciple and Coadjutor of the Apostles.] This is the same Clement whom S. Paul mentions, Phil. 4. v. 3. reckoning him in the number of those that had laboured together with him in propagating the Gospel, and that had assisted him in his Ministry; With Clement also, and with other my Fellow-L••bourers, whose Names are in the Book of Life.
• b 1.90

  Was ordained Bishop of Rome after Anacletus.] He is reputed by S. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other ancient Writers, to have been the third Bishop of Rome, tho' some affirm, that he was the immediate Successor of S. Peter; but it is better in my opinion to adhere to S. Irenaeus.
• * 1.91

  S. Clemens Romanus.
• c 1.92

  So famous among the ancient Authors.] S. Irenaeus hath cited it, Lib. 3. chap. 3. S. Clemens Alex. Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 289. and Lib. 4. p. 516. Lib. 5. p. 686. Lib. 6. p. 647. Origen, Lib. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; chap. 3. In Joan. 1. chap. 29. Euseb. Lib. 3. chap. 16, and 36. Lib. 4. chap. 22, and 23. S. ••yrill, Catech. 18. Epiph. Haeres. 27. N. 7. Hieron. in Lib. de Viris illustribus, and Lib. adversus Jovin. c. 7. Comment. in Isaiam, Lib. 14. chap. 52. vers. 13. Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes. Lib. 1. chap. 2. vers. 2. Lib. 2. ad chap. 4. vers. 1. Autor. R••sp. ad Orthodox. apud Just. Quaest. 74. Photius, Cod. 113.
• d 1.93

  In an ancient Manuscript▪] It is called The Manu∣script of Thecla, because it was written with the hand of an ancient Virgin called Thecla, who lived, (as is generally believed) in the time of the first Council of Nice. These Epistles have been since printed in the Collection of Cotelerius, in L••bbee's Edition of the Councils, and at Helmstadt in the year 1654. [As also at Oxford in 1677.]
• e 1.94

  Some of the Fathers have cited both these Epistles, as if they were of equal Authority.] The Author of the Apostolical Constitutio••••, c. ult. S. Epiphan. H••res. 27. chap. 6. and 30. chap. 15. S. Jerom, adversus J••v. chap. 7. Photius C••d. 126. Damasus, Lib. 4. Orth. Fidei. S. Dionys••••s of Corinth takes notice but of one single Epistle, and there is some difference in the style of the second, which makes us doubt of its Veracity. The Sibyls were heretofore cited therein, if we may give Credit to the Author of the Questions attributed to S. Justi••; but he doth not declare, whether it were in the first Part, or in the second, and part of the se∣cond is lost. Moreover S. Epiphanius seems to men∣tion other Epistles of S. Clement.
• f 1.95

  Being cited by Origen.] Tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Comment. in Genes. in Philocal. chap. 22. and in Matth. ch. 26. Euseb. lib. 3. Hist. chap. 3, and chap. 38. Athanas. in Synops. Epiph. H••res. 30. chap. 25. Hieron. in Catalog. and Lib. 1. in Jovin. chap. 14. and Comment. in Ep. ad G••lat. Lib. 1. chap. 18. Ruffinus de Adulterat. Lib. Orig. Autor op. imp. in Matth. chap. 10. vers. 15, 16, 24, and 42▪ Photius, Cod. 112, and 113.
• g 1.96

  Tho' written by a later Author.] The Author of the Recognitions is not the same with the Author of the Constitutions, tho' some have been of this Opini∣on; for their style is different; the later is well versed in the Principles of the Christian Religion, and in the Rites of the Church, but the other is ignorant of these matters; moreover they maintain a contrary Do∣ctrine: The Author of the Constitutions, in lib. 8. c. 46. reckons the Sun, Moon, and Stars, in the num∣ber of inanimate Creatures; whereas the Author of the Recognitions imagineth, that they have a Soul, in lib. 5. chap. 16. Lastly, the Author of the Constituti∣ons was not an Ebionite, but he that writ the Recogni∣tions was.
• h 1.97

  It is not known by whom, ••r when they were composed.] It is certain that they do not belong to the Apostles, as we have already evidently demonstrated.
• i 1.98

  They are cited by S. Epiphanius.] In Haeres. 45. this Father produceth a passage that is found in the beginning of the Constitutions, and in Haeres. 80. he cites another, which we read in Lib. 1. Constitut. chap. 3. concerning the Beards of Priests. In H••res. 25. he quotes a passage taken from Lib. 5. chap. 14, and 17. relating to the Fasts enjoyned on Wednesday and Friday, as also on the Days before Easter. In H••res. 70. he observes, that the Audians made use of certain Constitutions▪ which, tho dubious, ought not alto∣gether to be rejected, as containing nothing contrary to the Faith or Discipline of the Church. This may induce us to believe, that the Constitutions which are now extant, have been corrupted since the time of E∣piphanius, because the same thing could not be ••ss••∣med of those. Add to this, that in the same place Epiphanius cites a passage concerning Easter, wherein the Christians are admonished to celebrate that Feast together with the Jews, and the contrary is expresly declared in Constitut. Lib. 5. chap. 1••. Moreover in the same place, he produces other Testimonies, out of the Constitutions that are not found therein: Per∣haps S. Epiphanius had not sufficiently examined this Work, or perhaps he cited it without Book, or on the Report of another; However it be, he acknowledg∣eth it to be dubious.
• k 1.99

  Because they are infected with the Arian Heresie.] In Lib. 6. chap. 25. the Author reckons in the num∣ber of Hereticks, those that believe that JESUS is the same with the God of the Universe, but this might have been said in opposition to the Sabellians; and so much the rather since he adds, and do not distinguish the Son and the Holy Ghost. Many other Passages are likewise alledged, wherein he affirms, that the Son and the Word is the Servant, and Minister of God the Father. These are the Phrases used by the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, but they have been suspected ever since the Council of Nice.
• l 1.100

  That the Learned Photius.] He censures them on Three several Accounts. in ••od. 112. First ex mala∣fictione, from which (as he says) they may be vindi∣cated; Secondly, by reason of some Expressions used by the Author, which are Contradictory to the Book of Deuteronomy, and for these he might likewise be excused; and Lastly, he chargeth him with Arianism, from which he cannot be cleared without offering him some violence.
• m 1.101

  Mentioned by Eusebius.] Euseb. Lib. 3. chap. 25. Athan. in Ep. Fest. & Synopsi.
• n 1.102

  Of Nicephorus.] Niceph. in Stichometria. Zona∣ras in Ep. Ath. Mat. Blast••res in a Collection of Canons that is not Printed.
• o 1.103

  Which the likeness of their Titles hath caused to be confounded.] There are many Reasons to prove, that these are two different Books, for first S. Athanasius rec∣kons the Book of the Doctrine of the Apostles, among those that were usually read to the Catechumens, where∣as the Constitutions were Composed rather for the use of Bishops, and we find it prohibited in the last Canon to publish them, or to discover the Contents thereof to all sorts of People. Secondly, the Book of the Do∣ctrine of the Apostles, contained only Two hundred Verses according to the Stichometria of Nicephorus, which cannot agree with the Constitutions, that are more voluminous▪ Thirdly, in the Index of Scri∣pture made by Anastasius Nicenas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are mentioned as distinct Books, and in some Manuscripts the Constitutions are Entituled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Fourthly, in the Epitome of S. Athanasius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are distinguished; therefore this Work was not attributed to S. Clement▪ Fifthly, when Eus••bius Discourses of the Writings of S. Clement, he takes no notice of the Apostolical Con∣stitutions, neither have the Ancients mentioned them. The Arians might have objected them, in Vindica∣tion of their Heresie, and the Orthodox would have been obliged to make a Reply, but this is not done by either Party; therefore they are of a later Da••e, than the Doctrine of the Apostles; that was known to Eusebius, and S. Athanasius. These Reasons howsoever probable they may seem to be, are not altogether Ir∣reprehensible; to the First it is replyed, that the Con∣stitutions were made for the use of all Christians, as appears from the first Words thereof; that the last Ca∣non might perhaps be of a later Date; that S. Ath••∣nasius observes only, that this Book was useful for the instructing of Catechumens in the Discipline, and Faith of the Church, tho' it was not Canonical, which may be very safely affirmed of these Constitutions. In Answer to the Second it is alledged, that there were two Editions of the Constitutions, one more large being that which is now extant; and another, that was an Epitome thereof, and perhaps Nicephorus makes mention of this last under the Name of The Doctrine of the Apostles: Besides that there are some Manuscripts wherein there are 6000 Verses, and besides the Length of every particular Verse is not known. Thirdly, that the Distinction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no∣thing to the purpose, the one possibly was an Abridg∣ment of the other, neither is it certain, whether The Constitutions, be the Books now called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Fourthly, the Clementinae are a Work different from the Constitutions, as well as The Doctrine of the Apo∣stles. Lastly, the ancient Writers have not cited every thing that occured to them; the Arians have not made all the Objections that were obvious; and the Ortho∣dox have not replyed to every particular Circumstance that might be objected against them. These are the Answers, that are propounded to those that distin∣guish this Book of The Doctrine of the Apostles from The Constitutions, and I shall leave it to the Determi∣nation of the Reader, whether they do not cause grea∣ter Difficulties; for my part, I believe the formet Opinion to be more probable.
• p 1.104

  That they have been from time to time Corrected, &c. according to the various Customs of different Ages and Countries.] It is on this Account, that the Ethio∣pians have certain Constitutions different from Ours, which are cited by Anastasius Nicenus, Cod. 189. in the King's Library, and in his Questions, Q. 160. where they are much commended.
• q 1.105

  8. John Damascen and some others.] S. Epipha∣nius seems to quote Haeres. 26. n. 16. as also Anastasius; Q. 20. p. 242. Maximus in Homil. 53. and 55. Cedr••∣nus in Comp••nd. Hist. p. 170, and 171. Moreover it is ci∣ted in a Collection of the Works of the Fathers, which is in the Library of the Jesuits College at Clermont, and by Nicon in his Pandect.
• r 1.106

  Which appear on the contrary, to have been Com∣posed by the Modern Greeks.] It is related in these Acts, that S. Clement was sent beyond Sea, (ultra mare) and afterwards into a Desart near the City, (in Deser∣tum urbi vicinum). That he found there 2000 Chri∣stians condemned to hew Marble out of the Quarries, who entreated him saying, Ora pro nobis Pontifex, ut digni efficamur promissione Christi; Pray for us O Priest, that we may be made worthy of the Promise of Christ. That S. Clement caused a Spring to rise up in that place, because these Christians were obliged to fetch water Six Miles off from thence, that they built there with∣in one Year 75 Churches, that they demolished the Temples, and cut down consecrated Trees to the Number of 300000, that the Emperor Trajan being astonished at these Actions, sent thither the President Aufidianus, who caused S. Clement to be drowned; that whilst his Disciples sought after the Relicks of his Body, the Sea withdrew, and they found it laid in a Tomb of stone, and that it was revealed to his Disciples, that his Body should not be taken away, and that the Sea should retire after the same manner every Year during seven Days, which it continues to do (says the Author of these Acts) even unto this Day, and this was accompanied with divers Miracles. Here are many Fables that do not agree with the time of S. Clement. Who can imagine that People condem∣ned to hew Stones should find means to Erect 75 Churches, and to pull down an infinite Number of Temples? S. Ephrem, or rather the Author of the Narrative, which is falsly said to be his, gives an Ac∣count of the same Miracle, concerning the Sea that was dryed up, to discover the Body of S. Clement and adds that his Child being left in a Tomb, was found alive, and in good health at the end of the year following: But this pretended Ephrem is an Au∣thor no less addicted to Fables, who calls himself Arch-bishop of Chersona, tho' he never was in that place.

  [There have been several Editions of S. Clement's E∣pistle to the Corinthians, besides Mr. Young's and Cote∣lerius's: Joachim Maderus Printed it at Helmstadt 1654. in Quarto; Colomesius likewise set it out at London in Octavo, with some few Notes 1687; and it was Prin∣ted at Oxon in 1677 in Twelves. All these Editions are in Greek and Latin; Mr. Burton who writ Notes upon Antonius's Itinerary, as far as it concerned Britain, Translated it into English, and Printed it with Notes in Quarto 1647, at London.]
• a 1.107

  A Native of Thrace.] Caesarius Dialog. 2. in∣terrogat. 112. in Thracia ex qua Dionysius Areopagite ortus est.
• b 1.108

  Acts 17.
• c 1.109

  Was constituted Bishop of Athens] Dionysius Co∣rinthius in Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4. and lib. 4. cap. 4.
• d 1.110

  And suffered Martyrdom.] Aristides in Usuard••••, and the other ancient Writers of Martyrologies.
• e 1.111

  This question hath been so clearly discussed in our time.] Sirmondus published a Discourse wherein he proves it beyond contradiction; after him Launoy wrote several Tracts to confirm his Opinion, and to shew the falshood of the Records produced by Hildui∣nus, which are urged to authorize the vulgar Opi∣nion; and in a word, to confute all the Argu∣ments that are usually brought. To which we may add what Morinus had said concerning this Question in the beginning of his Book of Ordinations; And though I inserted nothing relating to this matter in the Text, yet I thought it convenient to set down the Opinions of the Learned Men above-mentioned, for the benefit of those that have not read their Works. The first Proof is, That it is certain that the Gospel was Preached later in France, than in the other Regi∣ons of the World, and that there was no Persecution in that Country before that of Valerian, as it is ex∣presly attested by Sulpicius Severus an Author who li∣ved in the Fourth Century. Now if St. Dionysius the Areopagite had been in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Christian Religion would have been introduced there very early, and there would have been many Martyrs in that King∣dom before the Perfec••tion▪ of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Secondly, It is evi••••nt that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was the first that propagated Christianity in France; that during his Life, and that of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Faith was only establi∣shed in the Pro••••••••••s of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Ly••••••, and that there were no Martyrs but in these two Churches in the time of the Persecution of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Aurelius; there∣fore there were no other Churches then planted among the Ga••ls. And indeed ••••se••i••s mentions no other Churches, or any other Ma••••yrs in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, no more than the Christians of the Church of Ly••••s in the Epi∣st•••• that they wrote concerning their Martyrs called by them Prot••-Ma••••yrs. Thirdly, it is related by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ in the first Book of his History, chap. 2••. on the credit of an ancient Author that composed a Treatise concerning the Passion of St. Sat••rni••s, that St. Denys and his Companions the Apostles of France, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 under the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Emperor 〈◊〉〈◊〉, about the year of our Lo•••• 250, to •…•…blish the Faith of Jesus Christ in that Country, which was al∣most entirely extinct after the death of St. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Fourthly, there are great numbers of Martyrologies, in which the Festivals of St. Di••••ysius the A••••••pagite, and of St. Denys the Apostle of France, are described as on two different days, and wherein the place and circumstances of their Martyrdom are distinguished. We may likewise draw the same Argument from the ancient Br••vi••ri••s, Miss••ls, Kal••ndars and L••it••ni••s in which St. Denys the Apostle of France is reckoned af∣ter the Saints that suffered under Marcus Aurelius. Fifthly, the Author of the Life of St. Fuj••ianus▪ Ful∣bertus, Carnutensis, and Lethaldus, distinguish two De∣nys's. Sixthly, the opinion of those that affirm, that S. D••••ys the Apostle of France is the same with the Areo∣pagite, was unknown before the Ninth Century▪ neither doth the Monk that wrote the Life of our St. Denys in the year 750, say one word concerning this matter. ••ildui••••s, who is the first that mentions it, is a very fa∣bulous Author, who tells abundance of Lies, and cites a Book written by one named Vi••bius, which is plainly forged▪ on the credit of which wretched Au∣thor he builds up the Opinion of those that confound the two St. Denys's.
• f 1.112

  Cited cap. 15. lib. de Caelest. Hier. cap. 1, and 13. de div. nom. cap. 3. de Myst. Theolog. and Ep. 9.
• g 1.113

  C. 4. lib. de div. nom.
• h 1.114

  C. 1, and 2. de divin. nomin. and cap. 3. lib. de Myst. Theolog.
• i 1.115

  Lib. de Caelest. Hier. c. 7.
• k 1.116

  C. 1, and 2. de Caelest. Hier.
• l 1.117

  Often Printed in Greek and in Latin separately.] In Greek by Morellus in the year 1562, with the Scho∣lia of Maximus and Pachymeres; at Basil in 1539, and at Venice in 1558, in Latin, of the Version of Ambro∣sius Camaldulensis at Strasburg in 1468, and in 1502, with the Notes of Jacobus Faber Stapulensis; in 1504 at Alcala, of the Translation of Ficinus; at Colen by Quentelius in 1546. In this Edition they have put in the Version of Scotus Erigena, Petrus Sarrasinus, Am∣brosius Camaldulensis, and Marsilius Ficinus, together with a Paraphrase by the Abbot de Verceil, and the Annotations of Dionysius Carthusianus. Perionius find∣ing these Versions too obscure, made a new Transla∣tion, which was Printed at Colen, at Paris in 1557, and 1567, and at Lyons in 1585. Clausarus likewise made another Translation that was Printed at Stras∣burg in 1546. The Book de Mystica Theologia was Prin∣ted with the Notes of a Divine at Paris, in Quarto, in the year 1626.
• a 1.118

  Sirnamed Theophorus.] This is not an an Epi∣thet, but his Sirname. Some have believed, that he was that young Child, whom Jesus Christ placed in the middle of his Apostles, and that from thence he took the Name of Theophorus, but this is a vain Ima∣gination without any Ground, not supported by the Testimony of any ancient Author; and besides, it con∣tradicts the Opinion of S. Chrysostom, who declares that S. Ignatius never saw our Saviour in the Flesh.
• b 1.119

  The Successor of Evodius.] S. Chrysostom, Theodo∣ret, and the Author of the Chronicle of Alexandria affirm, that he was ordained by S. Peter; but Eusebius, S. Jerom and the other ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, place Evodius between S. Peter, and S. Ignatius.
• * 1.120

  S. Ignati∣us.
• c 1.121

  Wild Beasts, said.] In citing the Testimony of any Author, we say, as he says, or as he writes, without using any Choice; and it ought not to be concluded from thence, that S. Irenaeus only produ∣ced a remarkable Expression of S. Ignatius, without taking it from any of his Works, for it is much more probable, that he took it from his Epistle to the Romans, because it is found there word for word.
• d 1.122

  If that be really his.] We find this Oration in the sixth Tome of his Works, it is Entituled, Quod unus ••it Veteris & Novi Testamenti Legislator. It hath been cited by Pope Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Charles the Great. Epiphanius the Deacon hath likewise al∣ledged it against Gregorius Neocaesariensis; it is quoted also by Theodosius in the Second Council of Nice. The style doth not seem to be that of S. Chrysostom, as being full of Allegories; some say that it seems to have been written about the time of the declining of the Roman Empire, through the Incursions of the Barbarous Nations, which are mentioned therein; nevertheless, it may be understood of the inroads of the Arabians that were made under the Reign of the Emperor Valens. Others think that this passage is put in since.
• e 1.123

  He made use thereof in preparing a new Edition.] The first Edition of Usher was Printed at Oxford, Anno Dom. 1644 It contains 1. A preliminary Disserta∣tion. 2. The Six Epistles of S. Ignatius in Greek, wherein all that is not in the ancient Version is di∣stinguished by Red Characters. 3. The counterfeit Letters. 4. The ancient Latin Translation. 5. Se∣veral Notes. In the Year 1647. he published another Edition which he calls Appendix Ignatiana, in which he inserted the Greek Text, published by M. Vos∣sius in 1646. as also a new Translation. He added therein 1. The ancient Records of the Martyrdom of S. Ignatius, which bear the Name of Philo. 2. The Letters of Tiberianus, Pliny and Trajan concerning the Constancy of the Martyrs. 3. The entire Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the Martyrdom of S. Polycarp. 4. Annotations on the Acts of the Epi∣stles of S. Ignatius.
• f 1.124

  To publish the Greek Original of S. Ignatius. His Edition was Printed at Amsterdam, Anno Dom. 1646. It contains, 1. The seven Original Epistles, excepting that to the Romans, as they were ▪written in his Greek and Latin Manuscripts. 2. The Greek Epistles falsly attributed to S. Ignatius, which are not cited by Eusebius. 3. The three Latin Letters to the Virgin Mary, and S. John. 4. The seven Greek and Latin Epistles, as they were in the former Editions. 5. The Epistle of S. Barnabas, together with Notes on the whole Work. The Editions of Cotelerius and of Maderus at Helmstadt in Octavo, are not different from that of Vossius, which hath been lately Reprin∣ted at London, in 1680.
• g 1.125

  Which being five in Number.] We find at the beginning, the Epistle of Maria Cassobolita: afterward the first Epistle of S. Ignatius to this Mary; the Se∣cond to the Inhabitants of Tarsus; the Third to the Antiochians; the Fourth to Hero a Deacon of the Church of Antioch; and the last to the Philippians.
• h 1.126

  The seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius.] They are written according to the Order observed by M. Vossius, First to the Christians of Smyrna; the Se∣cond to S. Polycarp; the Third to the Ephesians; the Fourth to the Magnesians; the Fifth to the Philadel∣phians; the Sixth to the Trallians, and the Seventh to the Romans. Moreover we may distinguish Four an∣cient Editions of the Epistles of S. Ignatius; the First contained only these seven that were known to Eusebius, and the other ancient Writers without a∣ny Additions; the Second comprehended only these seven Epistles, but with several Additions; Pearson had a Manuscript of them; which Copy had been used by Gobarus, Anastacius Antiochonus, and the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, in the Third there are the seven Authentick Epistles without Interpolations, to∣gether with the counterfeit; such are those of the Version of Usher, and the Greek Manuscript of M. Vos∣sius, and these were perused by S. Joannes Damascenus and Antonius: The Fourth is that of the seven Ge∣nuine Epistles, together with the Additions, and the others that were forged, which is the Vulgar.
• a 1.127

  S. Polycarp] Halloixiu•• says that S. Polycarp was origi∣nally of Smyrna; that he was born in the East, and that he was a Slave in his youth, that he was bought by a certain Lady named Calisti••ne, who gave him his Li∣berty, and caused him to be instructed in the Christi∣an Religion; that she afterwards made him her Stew∣ard, and at last her Heir. He enlarged on the liberal donations of this Lady; he affirms that B••c••l•••• Bishop of Smyrn•• was at first Tutor to S. Polycarp, and after∣wards S. Jo••••; he write•• much in the commendation of this Fictitious Buc••l••••, and declares, that he ordain∣ed S. Polycarp who is the Angel of Smyrn••. These Tales and many others are extracted from the false Acts of the Life of St. Polycarp forged under the name of Pionius from the M••nologium Graec••r••m by the mo∣dern Greeks.
• b 1.128

  The Disciple of S. John the Evangelist.] S. Ir•…•…∣us tells us, lib. 3. cap. 3. that he was constituted Bi∣shop of Smyrna by the Apostles; and this could be done by no other than S. Jo••••.
• c 1.129

  The head of the Churches of Asia.] S. Jer••me says that he was Pri•…•…ps 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Asia, that is to say, that he was the most considerable Bishop, and (as I may say) succeeded in the Authority of S. John.
• * 1.130

  S. Poly∣carp.
• d 1.131

  About the year 160.] He died in the seventh year of the Emperor Marcus A••relius in the year 167. he had then served Jesus Christ 86 years, as he declares him∣self in the Acts of his Martyrdom; Thus he might have begun to serve God in the year 81 after the Na∣tivity of our Saviour, and then he might be Ten years old. He conversed with all the Apostles, if we may believe the Testimony of S. Irenaeus. S. John died in the year of our Lord 101, and in the second of Traj••n; he was banished in the fourteenth of Domitian, A•…•… D•…•…. 95, and returned into Asia after the death of this Emperor. These Observations may serve to fix the Chronology of the Life of S. Polycarp. He was born about the year of our Lord 70, he began to consecrate himself to the service of God in the year 81. At that time he conversed with the Apostles, and became the Disciple of S. John; after the return of this Apostle he was ordained Bishop of Smyrna, however it is not pre∣cisely known in what year, but this must of necessity have happened before the year 101, since S. John died that year: He undertook his Journy to Rome in th•• beginning of the Pontificate of Anicet••••, who presided in that See from the year 158 to the year 169.
• e 1.132

  In his own Church.) All these Circumstances are related by S. Ire••••us. There are some who affirm, that the Expression of S. Irenaeus signifies only, that Anicetus administred the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper to S. Polycarp, but he would not thereby have done him much honour, it may be better understood according to our Explication.
• * 1.133

  [There is nothing in this Declara∣tion of the Church of Smyrna which the Protestants ever disallowed: They are far from thinking that those are not worthy of extraodinary Honours here below, who are so peculiarly graced by God himself. But yet if they ••re je••∣lous of the Honour which is onely due to Jesus Christ, and afrayd of doing any thing which may derogat•• from it, they think this to be a thing which needs no excuse; since we have a posi∣tive command for the one, whereas the other is wholly discretionary: And we can never E•••• in assigning the Bonds of that Respect which is due to Saints and Martyrs if we consider that their great Honour arises from their i••viola∣ble fidelity to our common Master; and that the chiefest reason why the Church at first commanded the annivers••∣ries of Saints and Martyrs to be ••bser∣ved with so much splendour▪ was to en∣courage the rest of the faithfull to imitate them as they imitated Jesus Christ.]
• f 1.134

  By S. Irenaeus, Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius.] S. Irenaeus in Lib. 3. contr. Haeres. says thus, There is ex∣tant an Epistle of Polycarp to the Christians of Philip∣pi, which is extremely accurate, and very proper to shew the Character of the Faith, and the Doctrine of the Truth, to those that take any care of their Salvation. Euse∣bius adds in lib. 4. cap. 14. that S. Polycarp in this E∣pistle makes use of some Testimonies taken from the First Epistle of S. Peter; These References are found in that which we now have under his Name. S. J••∣rom affirms, that this Epistle was read in the Assem∣bly of the Faithfull of Asia. See Photius, ••od. 126.
• g 1.135

  Qui cum eo sunt] It is expressed in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, they that had been with him, and who followed him when he passed through Philippi.
• a 1.136

  Hierapolis.] There are several Cities of that Nam••, but this lies between Phrygia and Lydia near Laodice••, being famous for Springs of hot Water.
• b 1.137

  A Disciple of S. John the Evangelist] S. Irenaeus, Lib. 5. cap. 33. Hac Papias Joannis auditor Polycarpi contubernalis. S. Jerom, Ep. 29. Ad Theodorum: Refert Irenaeus vir Apostolicorum temporum & Papiae au∣ditoris Evangelistae Joannis Discipulus. In the Marty∣rologies of Beda, Usuardus, and Ado, as also in the Roman, in the Works of Trithemius and Andreas Ca∣sari•…•…, in Anastas. Sinait. Lib. 7. in Hexamer. Oe∣cumen. in Act. cap. 2. he is called The Disciple of S. John the Evangelist. Eusebius on the contrary re∣citing a Passage of Papias in Hist. Lib. 3. cap. ult. wherein he speaks of two Johns, observes that the Master of Papias was not John the Evangelist, but the other John called the Elder. His Reason, or rather Conjecture, is that this Author in the beginning of his Books doth not assure us, that he was the Disciple of the Apostles, or that he had learn'd any thing from them, but only that he had received that which he declares from those that were familiar with the A∣postles, and who knew them. However, in the Pas∣sage alledged by Eusebius to prove his Assertion, Pa∣pias only affirms, that he interrogated the ancient Men who had seen the Apostles, demanding of them, What says Andrew? What says Philip? What says S. John? What says John the Elder? Therefore if it may be inferred from thence, that he was not the Disciple of S. John the Evangelist, because he informs us, that he enquired of those that had seen him what were the Opinions of this Apostle; it may as well be inferred that he was not the Disciple of John the Elder. However, the words of Papias may be inter∣preted after such a manner, as to signifie nothing else, but that he was carefull whensoever he happened to meet with any one that had familiarly conversed with the Apostles, to desire of them a particular account of their Doctrine or Judgment; Which makes me believe, that he was the Disciple of the Evangelist, and this is confirmed by the Authority of S. Irenaeus, who certainly means S. John the Evangelist; for S. Po∣lycarp was his Disciple, and he asserts that Papias was the Companion of Polycarp, Polycarpi contubernalis.
• * 1.138

  Papias.
• c 1.139

  The famous Opinion, or rather Dotage of Antiqui∣ty.] This was the opinion of S. Justin, Athenagoras, S. Irenaeas, S. Clement, Tertullian, Lactantius, and many other ancient Writers.
• d 1.140

  Andraeas Caesariensis and Oécumenius have like∣wise produced some Passages.] Andraeas Caesariensis in Serm. 12. in Apocalyps cites a Passage of Papias, where∣in he says, that the disposing of Sublunary Things was committed to the Care of the Angels that are round the Earth, but that they did not perform their Duty as they ought to do; Oecumenius upon the Acts observes, that Papias believed that Judas did not end his Life by hanging, but that he was run over with a Chariot, which is the Opinion of Theophylact, Euthymius and Oecumneius.
• e 1.141

  Without considering in the first place how true it is.] This is conformable to an excellent Passage of S. Augustin: Non sit Religio nostra in Phantasmatibus nostris; melius est enim qualecumque verum quàm omne quicqùid pro arbitrio fingi potest, melior est vera stipula, quàm lux inani cogitatione pro suspicantis voluntate for∣mata: De ver. Rel. c. 55.
• a 1.142

  A Disciple of the Apostles.] Hieron. Ep. 84. ad Magnum. This appears from the Fragment that is set down afterward. We must not confound this Qua∣dratus with another of this Name who was Bishop of Athens, and the Successor of Publius mentioned by Eusebius, Lib. 4. cap. 23. S. Jerom makes no distin∣ction between them in his Catalogue, nor in his E∣pistle to Magnus; and they are likewise confounded in the Men••logium Graec••rum: But Vales••us clearly proves that they are different; for the first was not a Bishop, as appears from the Testimony of Eusebius, Lib. 3. c. 37. and Lib. 4. c. 3. Besides, the former Qua∣dratus was a Disciple of the Apostles, and lived in the time of the Emperor Adrian, whereas the other never saw the Apostles, as being Contemporary with Dionysius Corinthius under the Reign of Antoninus. And it cannot be doubted, but that it was the Elder who presented the Apology to Adrian.
• * 1.143

  Quadratus & Aristi∣des.
• b 1.144

  It is said, that he had the gift of Prophecy.] E••∣sebius, Lib. 3. cap. 37. assures us, that he was endued with the Gift of Prophecy, as were the Daughters of Philip the Deacon, and Miltiades in Euseb. Lib. 5. cap. 17. reckons him in the number of the Prophets of the New Testament.
• c 1.145

  In our time.] Eusebius Thessalenicensis cites this Author against Andreas Cretensis▪ apud Phot. Cod. 335. Bede, who hath confounded him with the Bishop of Athens, declares, that he determined that there was no Meat from which a Christian ought to Abstain, which is likewise Recorded in the Menologium Graecorum up∣on the 21st day of September.
• * 1.146

  Agrippa.
• a 1.147

  About the beginning of the second Age of the Church.] Euseb. Lib. 2. cap. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Hieron. Hegesippus vicinus Apostolicorum temporum omnes à Passione Domini usque ad suam atatem Ecclesia••••icorum Actuum texens Historias, multaque alia ad utilitàtem legentium pertinentia hinc inde congregans, quinque libros scripsit Sermone simpliciori, ut quorum vitam sectabatur, dicendi quoque exprimeret caracterem.
• b 1.148

  He left the Jewish Religion in which he was born.] Euseb. Lib. 4. c. 22. No•…•…ulla item in Hebraeorum Evan∣gelio, & ex Hebraicâ Linguâ profert in medium, satis per haec apertè significans se ex Hebrais ad Christi fi∣dem transisse.
• * 1.149

  Hegesippus.
• c 1.150

  And remained there until that of Eleutherus.] So S. Jerom says; but Hegesippus only declares that he came to Rome, and resided there during the Pon∣tificate of Anicetus, whose Deacon Eleutherus was at that time; that Soter succeeded Anicetu••, and Eleuthe∣rus Soter. This shews, that he lived in the time of the Antonines, and wrote his History at least under the Pontificate of Eleutherus. In the Chronicle of A∣lexandria it is observed, that he died under the Reign of the Emperor Commodus.
• d 1.151

  Which he divided into five Books.] According to the Testimony of Eusebius and S. Jerom; this Work was entituled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apud Euseb. & Gobarum apud Ph••t. c. 232.
• e 1.152

  This Work was written in a simple Style.] This Eusebius, Lib. 4. c. 8. and S. Jerom de Script. Eccles. both bear witness.
• f 1.153

  But his way of telling it, looks more like a fabu∣lous Narrative than a true History.] Scaliger proves by many Arguments that this Relation is fabulous, some whereof are not very solid, but others are so convin∣cing, that the Answers of Halloixius and Petavius are not sufficient to give satisfaction to any Man of a sound Judgment; for to omit the particular Circum∣stances of the Life of S. James recited by Hegesippus, which cannot be true; as that he alone was permit∣ted to enter into the Sanctuary, because he was not cloathed in Woollen but in Linnen, and other Things of the like nature; the account of his Martyrdom being contrary to that of Josephus, the verity of whose History was never suspected by any, furnishes us with Arguments against which it is almost impossible to dispute. See Valesius his Notes on Eusebius.
• g 1.154

  He soon dismissed them without any molestation.] This Narrative is likewise accused of Falshood by Scaliger, but his Arguments are not so considerable as those which he urges against the former: The An∣swers of Halloixius and Valesius are indeed of some weight; yet I can scarcely perswade my self of the truth of this Relation.
• h 1.155

  Hitherto the Church had remained a Virgin.] Not but that the Church always remains in this state. Therefore the meaning of Hegesippus is this; That until that time she was not torn in pieces by Here∣sies and Schisms, and that all those who were called by the Name of Christians, had one and the same Faith, whereas afterward the Arch-Hereticks divided the Professors of Christianity, rent the Church, and propagated their pernicious Errors. It were a mani∣fest Abuse of this Passage to interpret it otherwise.
• a 1.156

  Of the City of Sichem, otherwise called Naples of Palestine.] In Dialog. 2. a p. 212. ad p. 223. Just. A∣p••l. 2, p. 53. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Justin the Son of Priscus Bacchius of Flavia, The new ••ity, ••r Naples of Syria. This was one of the principal Cities of the Samaritans, and it hath had four Names. The first and most ancient is that of Sichem; thus it is usually called in the Holy Scripture, and in the Works of Jo∣sephus: The Second is Ma••o••ort••a, or Mamorth••, in Joseph. Lib. 5. de bell•• Judaico, c. 4. and in Plin. Lib. 5. Nat. Hist. c. 13. The Third is Naples, and the Fourth is Flavia, which Name it has had ever since one of the Emperors (it is not certainly known, whether it were Vespasia•• or Domitian) caused a Colony of the Greeks to be Transported thither. Moreover this Name is to be found, not only in the passage of S. Ju∣stin, that we have even now cited, but also in ancient Medals and particularly in one of D••••itian's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.157

  He was a Greek by Birth and Religion.] S. Epipha∣nius seems to believe, that S. Justin was of the Extracti∣on and Religion of the Samaritans, when he says, that he passed from the Samarit•••• to the Christian Religion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But when S. Justin himself mentions his Conversion▪ he decla••es, that he had been Educated in the Greek Religion, and that having disc••••ered the Falshood thereof he readily em∣braced the Christian. It is true indeed that he calls the Sa∣maritans in his Dialogue, and in his first Apology, his Stock, his Nation, and the like: But it was because he was horn among them, in a City the Original whereof was Samaritan, as S. Paul is said to be a Citizen of Rome, and of the City of Tarsus, tho' he was a Jew, and of the Tribe of Benjamin; and perhaps Epiphanius meant nothing else in this place.
• * 1.158

  S. Justin.
• c 1.159

  To the Emperor, and to the Caesars his Sons.] The ••••∣scription of this Apology is, To the Emperor Aelius Ha∣drianus, Antoninus Pius, Augustus Caesar, and to his Son Verissimus, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural Son of Caesar, and the Adoptive of Antoninus Pius. To understand this Inscription it is requisite to know, that the Emperor Antoninus Pius, the Adop∣tive Son of Adrian, adopted Marcus Antoninus the Phi∣losopher; and Lucius Verus, the Son of Aelius Verus, whom some affirm to have been adopted by Marcus▪ the Philo∣sopher; therefore the first, who is named in this In∣scription, is the Emperor Antoninus Pius; the Second called Verissimus, is Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher▪ the Adoptive Son of Antoninus; the Third is Lucius Verus, the Son of Aelius Verus, who had been Caesar, and was the adoptive Son of Antoninus Pius; he affects to call them Philosophers, and Pious▪ that so he might insinuate himself into their Favour, & that he might oblige them patiently to hearken to the Reasons of the Christians.

  This Reason is by no means true: S. Justin design∣ed only to give these Emperors those Titles, by which they themselves desired to be called: This Family of the Antonines from Adrian to Commodus affected the Title of Philosophers, as much as of Fathers of their Coun∣try, or any other Title by which the flattering Romans endeavoured to get the Favour of their Masters whom they Courted.
• d 1.160

  About the Year after the Nativity of Jesus Christ.] It could not be written before this time, because he mentions in two several places, the Followers of Marcion, who came not to Rome, till the Death of Pope Hyginus in the Fourth year of Antoni∣nus, and did not begin to propagate his Heresie, un∣til about the end of the Reign of the same Emperor. S. Justin himself says, that it was 150 Years after the Birth of Christ, when he wrote it, Dici a nobis Christum an••e cen••um quinquaginta an••os natum sub Cyrenio. It is observed by Eusebius in his History, that it was Composed under the Pontificate of Anice∣tus, wherefore S. Jerom is deceived when he asserts, that it was presented in the Fourth year of Antoninus, and Scaliger is yet more mistaken, when he maintains that it was written in the beginning of his Reign; and the Argument alledged by him, that S. Justin mentions the War raised against the Jews under A∣drian, as a thing that lately happened, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not considerable, since this might very well be affirmed of a War that was made ten or twelve Years before.
• e 1.161

  Is actually the second] It is not to be doubted but that the Apology which is commonly called the first is really the second, for besides the authority of Eusebius, and Anastasius the Library Keeper, it is evident that it was written a little before the Mar∣tyrdom of S. Justin, since he therein describes the snares that were laid for him by the Philosopher Cre∣scens. But there is only the testimony of Eusebius to induce us to believe that it was Composed in the time of Marcus Antoninus. Valesius affirms, that Eu∣sebius is mistaken in this point; 1. Because he affirm•• in this Apology, That a certain Woman that was desirous to live separately from her Husband, presen∣ted a Petition to the Emepror, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not to the Emperors which she ought to have done, if this had happened in the beginning of the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, who had Lucius Verus for his Associate in the Empire. 2. Because he there says, that a certain Person named Lucius reproved a Judge in these words: this is not worthy of a pious Emperor, nor of him who is the Son of a Caesar and a Philosopher; or, as it is expressed by Eusebius, Of a Philosopher the Son of a Caesar, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eusebius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This Pious Emperor (says Valesius) is Antoninus Pius. and the Philosopher the Son of Caesar can be no other than Marcus Antoninus sirna∣med the Philosopher. The third objection is, that Urbicus who is mentioned in this Apology, as Prae∣fectus or Governor of the City of Rome, exercised this Office under Antoninus, as appears from the third Oration of Apuleius, and from the Inscriptions of G••uter, p. 38. These are the Reasons or rather Conjectures of Valesius, which nevertheless seem not to deserve to be preferred before the a••••estation of Eusebius, and in my opinion they may be easily an∣swered; for, 1. Mention is onely made of one Em∣peror in this Apology, because Lucius was absent, and might be engaged in his Expedition against the Persians. 2. The Epithe•• of Pious might likewise be attributed to Marcus Antoninus▪ the Philosopher, and his Son Commodus might well be called the Son of the Philosopher. Lastly, Urbicus might be Governor of Rome in the beginning of the Reign of Marcus Anto∣ninus the Philosopher, as well as at the end of that of Antoninus Pius.
• f 1.162

  And the Senate] Valesius affirms, that it was directed to the Emperor alone, and not to the Senate, however it is not only addressed to the Senate, but the Author likewise in the sequel of his Discourse makes application to the Romans in the plural num∣ber.
• g 1.163

  As is observed by ••atian.] In Lib. contr. Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ He procured that Justin should be condemned to death, as if to dye were the greatest of all evils.
• h 1.164

  In the sixth year of the Reign of Marcus An∣toninus the Philosopher.] The Author of the Alex∣andrian Chronicle sets the death of S. Justin down in this year, and we have no•• any certainer proof.
• i 1.165

  To the Menologium.] In Menolog. K••lend. J••nii▪
• k 1.166

  Or to the Acts of his Martyrdom.] These Acts are very plain, and contain the Replies of S. Justin and of six other Companions of his Martyr∣dom, which are very generous and pathetical; which makes me think that they are ancient.
• l 1.167

  S. Epiphanius.] It ought to be observed that S. Epiphanius is deceived in referring the Mar∣tyrdom of S. Justin to the Reign of the Emperor Adrian; but he is not mistaken as to the name of Rusticus, who lived in the time of Marcus Antoninus, and was much esteemed by him.
• m 1.168

  Pag. 342.
• n 1.169

  It begins after this manner.] Pag. 103. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• o 1.170

  The Epistle to Diognetus.] This Letter is written very much after S. Justin's way. There is mention made of a certain Person named Diognetus an able Painter in the Writings of the Emperor Mar∣cus Aurelius, and in those of Julius Capitolinus.
• p 1.171

  Rather concern Monks than simple Christi∣ans.] Such are these following Instructions; That they ought not to give occasion to Discord; That they ought not to withdraw themselves from the Publick Prayers on the account of any Difference; That they ought not to seek after the chiefest and the most honourable Employments; That they ought to keep silence, and to preserve modesty; That they ought not to discourse of the affairs of the World, but that they ought to look upon them as out of their way, and not to retain them in their minds; and many other Admonitions of this nature, which although exceeding useful, yet suit more with another Age different from that wherein S. Justin lived, and seem to have been given to Monks rather than ordinary Chri∣stians. The Author gives an account there of a Let∣ter which he had written to a certain Pope, and to his Superiors, which further confirms our conje∣cture.
• q 1.172

  As he himself declares.] Apol. 2. Pag. 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We have also Composed a Book against all the Heresies that have appeared, which we shall present unto you if you desire it. S. Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap. 14. Praeclare Justinus in ••o libro, quem Scripsit contra Marcionem ait, quoni∣am ipse quoque Domino non credidisset alterum Deum annuncianti, and Lib. 5. Bene Justinus in suo libro ait, quoniam ante adventum Domini nunquam ausus est Satanas blasphemare Deum, quippe nondum sciens suam damnationem.
• r 1.173

  As to the Doctrine of the Trinity.] The most difficult passage concerning the Trinity is that which we read in his Dialogue, pag. 356, and 357, wherein he declares, That the Father is invisible and the Son visible, and that the Majesty of the Father is greater than that of the Son. But if we reflect a little on this matter it will appear, that S. Justin and the other Fa∣thers who said the same thing, yet do not affirm that the Father is of a different nature or substance from the Son; but only, that it is the Son who manifested himself unto Men, or rather, that the Father hath not discovered himself unto Men but by his Son. Their Principle is this, That the Father performs no exteriour action but through his Word, which is his Son; that it was the Son who Created the World, who revealed himself under several Figures to the Patriarchs and Prophets, and who at last was made Man. It is on this account that they assert, that the Son is visible and the Father invisible, because the Fa∣ther is not visible but through the Son; But this doth not hinder them from being of the same nature. We find the like expressions in S. Athanasius, Orat. 4. contr. Arian. who cannot be suspected of maintaining any Here rodox Opinions concerning the Divinity of the Word.
• s 1.174

  In the main they agree with ours.] We need only examine his Discourse concerning the Three Per∣sons of the Holy Trinity in his Apology to the Empe∣rour, p. 36, 93, 94. as also concerning the Divinity of the Word, p. 67, 96. and in his first Apology, p. 44, 45. and more especially his Declaration con∣cerning the Word in his Dialogue, p. 267. where he not only confutes the Opinion of those that imagined that Jesus Christ was a mere Man, but he likewise proves that he is really God; and in p. 358. where he plainly asserts, that the Word was begotten of the Father without dividing his Substance.
• t 1.175

  To be either entirely happy or miserable.] In his Dialogue, p. 223. he declares, that the Souls of the just and of the wicked wait for the day of Judg∣ment in a place where they suffer more or less, pro∣portionably to the good or evil that they have done in the World.
• u 1.176

  Where they shall enjoy all lawful pleasures.] See p. 306. of his Dialogue; This Opinion is com∣mon to him and almost all the ancient Fathers, and it was a fancy set on foot by Papias, and from him spread among the Primitive Christians, of the vanity whereof we are at present convinced.
• x 1.177

  That the Souls of the wicked should at last become capable of dying.] We find this notion in the beginning of his Dialogue, p. 222, 223, and 224. where the old Man that instructs him, refutes the Opi∣nion of Plato, that Souls are incorruptible of their own nature, and maintaining that they are so only through grace; from whence he concludes, that the Souls of the wicked are only tormented as long as it shall seem good to the Will of God; insomuch that after ma∣ny Ages they shall cease to be.
• y 1.178

  Although in other places, &c.] In his Apo∣logy to the Emperor, p. 57. he affirms, that the tor∣ments of the Damned shall not only last for a thou∣sand years, as these mentioned by Plato, but that they shall be everlasting. Observe likewise what he says con∣cerning these torments in p. 64, 65, 66. and in other pla∣ces, wherein he always calls them Eternal, opposing this word Eternal to the Pains that shall one day have an end.
• z 1.179

  Who could cause them to appear, &c.] He asserts this in speaking of Samuel, whose Soul the Witch really caused to return, according to his O∣pinion in Dialog. p. 332, and 333.
• aa 1.180

  According to the testimony of S. Irenaeus.] This passage is set down above.
• bb 1.181

  That the Devils are not as yet thrust down into Eternal Flames.] We find this in his Apology to the Emperor, p. 71.
• cc 1.182

  Having only the knowledge of God without that of Jesus Christ.] In his second Apology, pag. 83. he declares that they that lived according to the Principles of Natural Reason, as Socrates, Heraclitus, Azarias, Misael, &c. might be called Christians, and he seems to suppose that they were saved by li∣ving up to the Law of Nature.
• dd 1.183

  The Works of S. Justin were first printed all together in Greek.] I do not speak of the several Editi∣ons of the Versions which are common, and whereof there are three besides that of Langus. The first was Composed by Picus Mirandula, and printed at Basil by Henry Peter in the years 1528, and 1551. The se∣cond by Perionius, and Printed by Nivelle at Paris in 1554. The third by Gelenius was Printed at Basil in 1555. Lastly, a Translation of all the Works of Justin was set forth by Langus, and Printed at Basil in 1565, and at Paris in the same year, and in 1578, together with large Commentaries. The Book of the Confu∣tation of the Opinions of the Aristotelians was transla∣ted by Postellus, & printed by it self by Nivelle in 1552. A Greek Edition of his Apologies and several other little Tracts of the Greek Fathers were Printed at Rome by Zannerus. The Exhortation to the Greeks in Greek is Printed by it self by Guillard at Paris.
• * 1.184

  Melito.
• a 1.185

  A Book of the Lives of the Prophets.] Some reckon two Books on this Subject, but it is plain from the Greek Text of Eusebius, and the Authority of S. Jerom, that there was but one.
• b 1.186

  One of the Submission of the Senses unto Faith.] S. Jerom, and Ruffinus distinguish the Book of Faith, from that of the Senses, but it is more probable, that it was but one Book bearing the above-mentioned Ti∣tle, as being Composed against some Hereticks, who asserted that we ought to believe only according to our Senses.
• c 1.187

  Of God incarnate.] It is expressed in Greek. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of God incarnate, or invested with a Body. Others expound this passage after ano∣ther manner, imagining that he maintained that God was Corporeal; but this last is not the proper signifi∣cation of the Greek word. However, Origen, cited by Theodoret in Quest. 20. in Exodum, says that Melito wrote a Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that God was Corporeal, which answers to the other Interpre∣tation.
• d 1.188

  Unworthy of this Author.] One of these passa∣ges is produced by Halloixius, being a Comparison between Isaac and Jesus Christ, full of childish Noti∣ons and Expressions, that are more agreeable to the Modern, than the ancient Writers.
• a 1.189

  Sirnamed the Assyrian.] At the end of his Trea∣tise against the Gentiles, he declares that he was born in Assyria, and that he had been instructed in the Theology of the Grecians.
• * 1.190

  Tatian.
• b 1.191

  Of a new Sect.] S. Irenaeus Lib. 1. Euseb. Lib. 4. c. 29. S. Jerom, in Catalogo.
• c 1.192

  This Sect was afterward augmented by Severus.] S. Epiphanius affirms, that Severus lived before Ta∣tian, but he is mistaken.
• d 1.193

  He doth not condemn the State of Matrimony in that Book.] On the other hand, Pag. 168. he seems to approve it.
• e 1.194

  A Sense which is not Heretical.] He asserts that the Word was begotten in the time of the Crea∣tion of the World; altho' he was from all Eternity, calling the Generation of the Word his Application, (if we may so term it) to the exteriour Works: He adds, that the Word was not begotten by way of Se∣paration, but after the same manner, as one Fire is lighted or kindled by another; so that God did not remain without the Word, but that the Word pro∣ceeded from him, and remained in him altogether, or at the same time this he explains by the instance of human Speech. These are the Principles of some of the ancient Christians. The Version of this Treatise was Printed together with the Greek Text at Basil, in the Years 1564, 1569, 1575, 15••••. and at Geneva, in 1592.
• * 1.195

  Athenago∣ras & Hermias.
• a 1.196

  In the time of Emperor Marcus Antoninus, &c.] He joyns Lucius Aurelius Commodus with Marcus. Labbé affirms that it was Lucius Verus; but it is more probable, that it was Commodus the Son of Antoni∣nus, and that this Apology was presented after his be∣ing taken into the Government, about the Year 178.
• b 1.197

  In Greek and Latin] At Paris in Quarto, by Veke, Ann. Dom. 1541, and in Octavo, by Stephen with Nannius's Translation in 1557. Also by Plan∣tin at Antwerp in 1560, 1583, and 1588. The Tran∣slation of Suffridus was Printed at Colen, with Com∣mentaries in 1567, and 1573. Nannius's Version of the Treatise concerning the Resurrection, was pub∣lished at the end of the Works of Philo at Basil 1561, and in 1558 by Episcopius, as also at Colen in 1599. There is a Version of the Treatise of the Resurrection by Ficinus, and Printed at Basil in 1516, and another of Valetus in Italian, Printed at Venice in 1556. The Apology was Printed in Latin at Paris in 1498, in Greek and Latin in 1577. In Latin at Basil 1565. Translated by Gesner, and there again in 1558, in Octavo at Zurick in 1599. The Book concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, was Printed in Latin at Paris in 1498, at Basil in 1561. In Greek and La∣tin in Venice in 1498, and 1550. At Basil in 1593, and 1653. At Paris in 1615, 1618, and 1636. The Tran∣slations which are at the end of S. Justin, are Nan∣nius's of the Treatise of the Resurrection, and Ges∣ner's of the Apology.

  [Athenagoras has also been Printed at Oxon Gr. Lar. in 12^o. 1682; and at Leipzick 1684, in Oct. cum Not is Var.]
• a 1.198

  They that imagine, &c.] This was the Opini∣on of Gulielmus Tyrius, who in S. Bernard's time wrote the History of the Crusade, See lib. 4. c. 9. It is a gross error, for according to this account Theo∣philus must have lived above 150 years.
• * 1.199

  Theophilus Bishop of Antioch.
• b 1.200

  Ordained Bishop of Antioch.] He was the sixth; The first (according to the testimony of Eusebius) was Evodius, the second S. Ignatius, the third Hero, the fourth Cornelius, the fifth Heros, and Theophilus the fixth; S. Jerome indeed declares in one place that he was the seventh, but he is mistaken; Euse∣bius in his Chronicle, and in his History, refers his Ordination to the eighth year of the Reign of the Emperor Marcus, that is the 170 after Christ, ac∣cording to the common computation.
• c 1.201

  Until the beginning of the Reign of Commo∣dus.] Eusebius affirms that Maximinus was his Suc∣cessor in the seventeenth year of Marcus Antoninus, but in the Chronology of the Emperors composed by Theophilus at the end of his third Book to Autolycus he reckons nineteen years and ten days of the Reign of Verus, that is to say, of the same Emperor Anto∣ninus, and it cannot be affirmed that 16 years ought to be put instead of 19, as it is in the Translation, for by computing the total Sum of the years of the Emperors which amount to 237 years and one day, it is apparent, that there must of necessity be 19. From whence it follows, that either he was mistaken in reckoning up a greater number of years of the Reign of this Emperor under whom he lived, than were re∣ally passed, which is not credible, or that he did not write these Books until after this time, under the be∣ginning of the Reign of Commodus; and then, he could not have had Maximinus for his Successor until the year 182 of the Vulgar Account, unless he was taken in his Life-time to be his Coadjutor. There is more probability that Eusebius was deceived a year or two. Nicephorus in his Chronography of the Patriarchs of Antioch allows 13 years to Theophilus, which agrees with our Opinion.
• d 1.202

  And a Treatise against the Heresie of Hermoge∣nes.] Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 St. Jerom, Sub Imperatore M. Antonino Vero librum contra Marci∣onem composuit, qui usque ••odie extat. And Euse∣bius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Jerom, Et contra Haeresim Hermogenes li∣ber unus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Je∣rom, Et alii breves, elegantesque tractatus ad aedi∣ficationem Ecclesiae pertinentes.
• e 1.203

  The word Trinity.] Lib. 2. p. 94. and 100.
• f 1.204

  But these Expressions which are common to him with many of the ancient Fathers had a different sig∣nification.] They meant nothing else by the first Ex∣pression, as hath been already observed, but that God made himself manifest unto Men by the Word, therefore when Theophilus affirms that the Word is in a place, and that the Father cannot be there, he in∣tended only to declare, that the Word appears unto Men in a place, as he heretofore appeared unto Adam in the Terrestrial Paradise, and that the Father doth not appear in that manner: This is the System of the ancient Christians: It would be more difficult to re∣solve the second Expression, were it not that they themselves have explained it, since they acknowledge that the Word is Eternal, and that he remained in God from all Eternity, as his Council, Wisdom, and Word. But they say that the same Word who was in God, in some manner went out from him when he undertook to Create the World, because he began to make use of this Word in Exterior Operations, and this is what they call the Procession, Prolation, and Co-generati∣on of the Word, which does not hinder but that the Word might be from all Eternity, and eternally be∣gotten of the Father after the same manner as we ap∣prehend it, but this is not that which they call Gene∣ration. These Expressions are not only used by Theo∣philus, but likewise by Athenagoras, Tatian, Tertul∣lian, the Author of the Book concerning the Trinity, amongst the Works of this Father, Lactantius, the Compiler of the Homilies attributed to Zeno Vero∣nensis, and afterwards by Rupertus in his Commenta∣ries on Genesis.
• * 1.205

  Apollina∣rius.
• a 1.206

  By Eusebius and S. Jerome.] Lib 4. Cap. 27. S. Jerome in Catalogo omits the Books against the Jews, neither are they found in the Version of Ruffinus, nor even in some Greek Manuscripts of Eusebius.
• b 1.207

  As also those concerning Piety and Truth.] Photius Cod. 14. It is probable that the Book of Piety is the first of those two that are cited by Eusebius, under the Title of Truth. Besides, he affirms, that there were other Works of this Author, which he had never seen.
• * 1.208

  Dionysius of Corinth.
• a 1.209

  He is reckoned among the Martyrs.] On the 29th of November, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, on this day Dionysius Bi∣shop of Corinth died by the Sword. Glycas affirms that he suffered Martyrdom under the Reign of Antoninus Pi∣us; and yet it is certain, that he lived under Marcus Au∣relius.
• * 1.210

  Pinytus, &c.
• a 1.211

  As well as Modestus.] S. Jerom affirms, that in his time there were other Tracts extant under the Name of Modestus; but that they were rejected by the learned as Supposititious.
• b 1.212

  Bardesanes.] Porphyritis, Lib. de Abst. cites one Bardesanes a Babylonian, who he says lived in the time of his Fore-fathers, and writ concerning the Brachman and Indian Philosophers. But he must needs have been another Person.
• c 1.213

  Was Dedicated to the Emperor Antoninus.] It is asserted by S. Jerom, that he presented it to him; but it is more probable, that being Translated, it was afterwards delivered by others; for since he wrote in Syriack, it is not credible, that he presented, or even Dedicated his Book to the Emperor; on the contra∣ry, he Composed it at the Entreaty of his Friends; and in the form of a Dialogue.
• d 1.214

  A very good Christian.] S. Epiphanius is de∣ceived; for it is otherwise affirmed by Eusebius, that he was at first a Valentinian, and that his Errors were the remainders of this Heresie.
• e 1.215

  Being well-skilled in the Greek and Syriack Tongues.] He did not understand Greek, since, as Eusebius assures us, his Disciples Translated his Works.
• f 1.216

  The Friend of Antoninus.] Neither is there much certainty in this Relation.
• g 1.217

  That he had acquired much Learning.] This Fragment contains an Enumeration of the Man∣ners, Customs and different Laws of a very great number of People, which plainly shews his Learn∣ing, and it is written as agreeably as the Subject was capable of allowing it.
• a 1.218

  That he was a Greek.] Galesinius and some o∣ther Authors tells us, that he was of Smyrna, but this is barely a Conjecture: 'Tis certain, he was a Greek, and in all probability of Asia.
• b 1.219

  He was at first Educated in the Christian Reli∣gion] He always speaks of the Christian Religion, as if he had never been of any other, and he no where takes notice, that he had ever been a Heathen. Be∣sides it is certain that he was a Christian, and a Di∣sciple of S. Polycarp from his tender years, as he him∣self testifies in his Letter to Florinus, as it is cited by Eusebius, Lib. 5. c. 20. I have seen you, says he, when I was as yet but a Child in Asia with S. Polycarp, I remember it very well because we best retain what we have seen in our Youth, so that I can tell, what kind of a place it was where S. Polycarp lived, what Discourses ••e held, and after what manner he lived. And in the Third Book against Heresies, Ch. 3. Poly∣carp••s ••ut•••••• constitu•••••• ab Apostolis Smyr••is i•• Asiâ Episc••p••••, quem & nostr•• pri••â ••••••te vidimus, mul∣tum enim 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & ••aldè s••••••x▪ Gl••••io••issim••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 N••bilissim•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faci••••s ex••vit è vitâ▪ Which clearly Demonstrates that S. Irenaeus was very young, when he used to go to S. Polycarp, and that on the other hand, S. Polycarp was extreamly old.
• * 1.220

  S. Irenaeus.
• c 1.221

  The Year of our Lord, 140.] 'Tis commonly believed, that he was born towards the end of Tra∣jan's Reign, or in the beginning of Adrian's. But this does not agree with what we have observed con∣cerning him, by which it unde••••ably appears, that he only knew S. Polycarp in his old Age, when he him∣self was e••••eeding young: Besides, S. Ir••naeus lived till the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 202, or 203, wherein he suffered Mar∣••yrdo••, and that he had Strength and Vigor enough still 〈◊〉〈◊〉 under the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Eleutherus, towards the Year of our Lord 178. And this abundantly dis∣covers the Error of those Persons, who have imagi∣ned, that Irenaeus was the Angel of Thyatira, of whom mention is made in the ▪Apocalypse. 'Tis certain, that Book was writ before his Birth, for in his Fifth Book speaking of the Revelations; It is not very long, says he, since it has appeared in the World, almost in our own time, at the end of Dom••i••••'s▪ Reign.

  [Mr. Dodwel has fixed the time when S▪ Irenaeus lived▪ in his Third Dissertation▪ upon this Fathe••▪ in this manner. Irenaeus speaking of S. John's Revelation says (Lib. 5. cap. 30.) Nequ•• enim ante 〈◊〉〈◊〉 t••m∣poris visum est, sed pe••e sub n••stro Seculo, ad finem Domitiani imperii: So that the la••••er end of the Reign of the Emperor Domitian, was very near the time when S. Irenaeus lived. Whence it must follow▪ that he was alive at least under the former part of Tra∣jan's Government. But then the words, Sub nostro seculo, are not so easie; because S••••ulum at that time signified as often the time of the present Emperors Government as any thing else. Irenaeus says also, that when he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he heard S. Polycarp at Smyrna; when he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now S. Po∣lycarp was an old Man in the beginning of Hadrian's Reign, to which time Irenaeus being his Disciple must be referred: For S. Irenaeus in his Letter to Florinus, says, that he saw him when himself was very Young, making a very splendid Figure in the Emperor's Court. Now this can agree to none but Hadrian; who often went about his Empire, staying long in se∣veral places, where their Antiquities and Histories could afford him Entertainment. This of necessity must be about the Year CXXII▪ since no other time can be Assigned in Hadrian's Reign for such a Journey.

  As for the time of his Death it must be carried as much higher as that of his Birth. The common O∣pinion is, that he suffered in the Persecution which Severus raised in Gaul, after he had Conquered Albi∣nus. But that is inconsistent with it self; and it is no ways probable, that Severus should raise Persecu∣tion against those Men, for favouring Alb••••••••••, who as Tertullian assures 〈◊〉〈◊〉, made it a great part of their Justification, that in all these Civil Wars they had ne∣ver declared themselves of any one Faction against the Emperor Severus; and this he appeals to as a thing notoriously known. Besides none of the Ancients within 300 Years of Irenaeus ever mention his being a Martyr, a thing never omitted in those Primitive times, whenever they had just grounds to give a Title, which of all others they thought the most Honoura∣ble. It is plain by the Controversies concerning Easter, and his Letter to Florinus, that he lived to Commo∣du••'•• time. And if he were 25 years old, when he ••aw Florinus at Smyrna about the Year CXXII, he must have been born near or in the Year XCVII. In the Year CLXXXII (the 3d. of Commodus) he wrote against Blastus and Florinus, when by this Ac∣count he himself was 85 years old. The last Contro∣versies concerning the time of observing Easter were in the Year CLXXXIX, in the 10th year of Commodus, when we are sure that S. Irenaeus was alive, because his Opinon▪ was appealed to, and he gave it so ••o∣lemnly as to put an end to their Differences. Then he was by the former Account, in the XCII Year of his Age: After that we have no Memorials, either how long he lived, or what he did.]
• d 1.222

  S. ••erome▪] Ep. 29. ad Theodorum. Refert Irenaeus, vir Apostolicorum temporum, & Papiae au∣ditoris Johannis Evangelistae discipulus.
• e 1.223

  Who had beheld the Successors of the Apostles.] Lib. 4. c. 45. Quemadmodum audivi à Presbytero, qui audierat ab his, qui Apostolos viderant, c. 47. valdè i••sensatos ••stend••bat Presbyter eos. Item c. 49. 50, 52. and Lib. 5. c. 5. and cap. 17. he cites Papias by Name, Lib. 5. c. 33.
• f 1.224

  He went into France.] Gregory of Tours writes, that he was sent thither by S. Polycarp. We don't certainly know what Year, though 'tis probable he did not stay long in Asia.
• g 1.225

  By Pothinus.] Halloixius was of Opinion, that he was ordained Presbyter by S. Polycarp. But there is more Reason to induce u•• to believe, that he was ordained by Pothinus, and therefore S. Jerome calls him the Presbyter of Pothinus.
• h 1.226

  At his return from a Voyage that he made to Rome.] 'Tis certain, that the Martyrs had resolved to send him to Rome to carry their Letter, but we can't certainly tell, whether he went thither or no. Valesius thinks, that though they intended to send him, yet Pothinus's Death preventing him, he was de∣tained there to be his Successor, and so never went to Rome at all. Baronius and Petavius say, that he went to Rome, and that he was not ordained till after his Return. They have the Authority of S. Jerome to support them, who says the same thing in his Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers in the following words. Irenaeus, Pothini Episcopi qui Lugdunensem in Gal∣liâ regebat Ecclesiam Presbyter, à Martyribus ejusdem loci ob quasdem Ecclesiae quaestiones r••gatus Roma•••• Missus, honorificas super nomine suo ad Eleutherum perfert literas, posteà tum Pothino prop•• Nonagenario Martyrio Coronato in locum ejus substituitur. Eusebius also seems to be of the same Opinion, since he menti∣ons a Letter wherein it is said, that he was sent to Rome, without telling us, that his Journey was stopt by the Death of Pothinus. The Conjecture of Valesius is only founded upon the Improbability of the thing, that they would send S. Irenaeus, who was the chief and the best known Member of the Church of Lyons, and who besides was to succeed Pothinus; at a time when that Church stood so much in need of his Assistance▪ But besides that in a Question of Fact, as this is, a Conjecture of this Nature is of little Consequence, so it may be replyed, that he was sent at the beginning of the Persecution, and that he returned before the Death of Pothinus. Feuardentius imagines, that S. I∣renaeus carried Letters also into Asia and Phrygi••▪ which the same Martyrs wrote to their Brethren in those Churches about the same Subject, but this is ve∣ry improbable, and there is nothing in Eusebius to induce us to believe it. All that we Read there, a∣mounts only to this, that the Churches of Vienna and Lyons, after the Death of Pothinus, and the other Martyrs, wrote a long Letter (which in all probabili∣ty was Composed by S. Irenaeus) to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, cited by Eusebius towards the end of which, They passed their Censure upon the Monta∣nists, with a great deal of Piety and Devotion, set∣ting before them (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the Letters which their Martyrs had written, while they were as yet in Chains, as well to the Brethren of Asia and Phrygia, ••s to Eleutherus Bishop of Rome. But he does not say, that those first Letters to the Brethren of Asia and Phrygia, were carried by S. Irenaeus, nor that they were sent at all, till the Letter concerning their Mar∣tyrdom was writ, and it seems to be very improbable that they would send them the second time, if they had been carried thither once before▪ As for what relates to the Ordination of S. Irenaeus it is cer∣tain, that he was only a Presbyter, when he went to Rome, and this appears by the Letter of the Martyrs by Eusebius, and S. Jerome. It is more difficult to know, who ordained him afterwards. Father Ques∣nel in his Dissertations upon S. Leo, pretends that he was ordained by the Pope, and that he went purpose∣ly to Rome upon that Account, others believe that he came back before the Death of Pothinus, and was or∣dained by him. It is more natural and more agree∣able to the Testimony of the Ancients to believe that he was not Elected, and ordained Bishop of Ly••ns, till after the Death of Pothinus; and whereas Father Quesnel pretends, that at that time there was only one Bishop of France, and therefore it was necessary for S. Irenaeus after the Death of Pothinus to go and be ordained at Rome, all this is precarious, and the rather, because it appears that S. Irenaeus was sent thither while Pothinus was living, and upon another occasion.
• i 1.227

  'Twas upon this Account.] He himself tells us in his Preface to the fifth Book, that he Composed these Books to convert the Hereticks, and to preserve the Novices in the Faith, left they should be l•••• aside by those, who would use their utmost Endeavours to pervert them, and sedúce them from the Truth.
• k 1.228

  In Greek.] 〈◊〉〈◊〉 having ••ound this ancient and ••ar••arous Version, a•• first imagined, that these Books were Originally written in Latin, but after∣wards he altered his Opinion, and no body doubts at present, but that they were written in Greek. For first S. Jerome places S. Irenaeus amongst the Greek Authors. Secondly, Eusebius S. Epiphanius, Theodo∣ret, Photius and S. John Damascene, read and quoted him in Greek. Thirdly, This Author was less known to the Latins, than to the Greeks; and Lastly, speak∣ing of the number of the Letters, and the Name of Anti-Christ, Lib. 5. he says several things that could not be said but by an Author that wrote in Greek. We don't know who made this Version; some have attributed it to himself, but this is a foolish Chime∣ra; it was certainly Composed by a Man that under∣stood neither Language as he ought. It was not known in the time of Gregory the Great, who in his 50th Letter to Aetherius tells him, that he had search∣ed a long time after the Writings of S. Irenaeus, with∣out being able to find them. Gesta vel script•• B. Ire∣naei jamdiu est quod sollici••è quae••••oimus, sed hactenus ex eis invenire aliquid non valui. S. Austin ci••es a passage out of S. Irenaeus, Lib. 1. contra Jul. cap. 3. which is of another Version.
• l 1.229

  Eleutherus.] This appears, because in his Cata∣logue of the Bishops of Rome, from S. Peter down to his own time, he ends with Eleutherus, who, he says, was then living. Nunc duodecimo loc•• Episcopatum ab Apostolis sortitur Eleutherus, Lib. 3. c. 3.
• m 1.230

  Bearing this Title, &c.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eusebius, Pho∣tius, and others. This agrees with the name which he has given his Books in his Prefaces to Lib. 2, 3, and 4. and in the last Chapter of the 4th as well as the first of the fifth. The Hereticks of those times called their knowledge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and themselves Gnosticks, which was also the name of a particular Sect.
• n 1.231

  Of Knowledge.] St. Jerome distinguisheth this Treatise of Knowledge from that against the Gen∣tiles, for want of having sufficiently minded a pas∣sage in Eusebius, Lib. 5. c. 26.
• o 1.232

  That Eusebius and S. Jerome mention.] S. Je∣rome speaking of the Apocalypse of S. John tells us, that S. Justin and S. Irenaeus have interpreted it, from whence some conclude, that S. Irenaeus composed a Commentary upon it. But S. Jerome's true meaning is, that these two Authors cited and explained some passages of it. Some Authors formerly attributed to him the Book De Universo, which was composed by Caius a Presbyter of Rome, mentioned by Photius, Cod. 48. The Author of the Questions attributed to S. Justin, cites a Book about Easter, Quest. 115 and tells us, that there was an Account, that they did not pray kneeling on Sundays, and that there was menti∣on made of the Pentecost, all which perhaps might be found in the intire Letter of S. Irenaeus to Polycarp, of which Eusebius has only given us a fragment. Eu∣sebius in his fourth Book, ch. 25. speaking of the Book of Philip against Marcion, tells us, that S. Irenaeus and Modestus had likewise wrote against the same Heretick. S. Irenaeus himself, lib. 1. c. 29. promises to write par∣ticularly against that Heretick. We are not assured whether he ever did write against him or no, because neither S. Jerome, nor Eusebius, who have given us a Catalogue of all the Books of S. Irenaeus, mention it. 'Tis probable, that the Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons concerning their Martyrs was writ by S. Irenaeus.
• p 1.233

  Of the Trinity.] Lib. 1. c. 2. lib. 3. c. 20. lib. 4. c. 25, 37, and 75. and lib. 5.
• q 1.234

  His Divinity and Eternity.] Lib. 1. c. 19. lib. 2. c. 18, and 48. lib. 3. c. 6. In all these places, and se∣veral others, he says, that the Word is truly God. Lib. 2. c. 43, and 56. and lib. 3. c. 20. he says, that the Word is, and was always co-existent with the Father.
• r 1.235

  And his equality with the Father.] In the fourth Book, ch. 8. he says, that the Son is the measure of the Father, because he comprehends him. He seems to have said something contrary to this lib. 2. where he says, that the Father is greater than the Son, that he knew not of the day of Judgment; And in another place he says, that the Father is invisible and the Son visible. But as to the first passage, there is no more difficulty in it than in that of S. John, and he speaks there of Jesus Christ considered as a Man. And the second ought to be understood after the same manner, as we have explained a like passage of S. Justin. It is yet more favourable to us, because he says that the Son makes the Father visible, Visibile Patris Filius. Which shews, that the Father and the Son are of the same nature.
• s 1.236

  In the second Book.] Lib. 2. c. 51, &c. princi∣pally in the 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64. where he speaks of the Immortality of the Souls of the Just. See likewise Chap. 37. and 73. of the fourth Book, and Lib. 5. c. 32.
• t 1.237

  Of the lamentable consequences of his Sin.] Lib. 3. c. 20, 33, 34, and 35. and in several places of the fifth Book.
• u 1.238

  That all Men may be saved.] Lib. 3. cap. 18, 20, 22, and 33. Lib. 4. chap. 5.
• x 1.239

  To possess eternal happiness.] Lib. 5. c. 31, 32, &c.
• y 1.240

  Number of the Saints.] Lib. 4. c. 39, and 45.
• z 1.241

  Above fifty years upon Earth.] Lib. 1. c. 40. &c.
• aa 1.242

  Before the coming of Jesus Christ.] Lib. 4. c. 78.
• bb 1.243

  Whereof they had no knowledge in their En∣trance into happiness.] Lib. 2. c. 47.
• cc 1.244

  To the Angels.] Lib. 4. c. 30.
• dd 1.245

  The Poets and Philosophers.] It is certain, he understood Homer very well, since he collects several Verses taken out of different places, to describe the carrying away of Cerberus, lib. 1. And as for the Pagan Philosophers, he knew them so very thorough∣ly, that in the second Book, ch. 11. he discovers all that the Valentinians had borrowed from each of them. We need only read over his first Book to be sufficiently persuaded, that he had very particularly applied himself to know all the Opinions of the He∣reticks. One sees by the Histories which he cites as well in his Books, as in his Letter to Victor, how well he was verst in History, and in the Discipline of th•• Church.
• ee 1.246

  Arguments that are not very solid.] Phot. God, 120. Etsi in aliquibus Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum certa veritas spuritis rationibus fuscari videtur.
• * 1.247

  Victor, &c.
• * 1.248

  Several Writers, &c.
• * 1.249

  Serapion of Antioch
• a 1.250

  The Subscriptions of two Bishops of Thrace.] These Subscriptions occasioned Baronius to imagine, that a Council was held upon this Subject; but they are only the Subscriptions of the Letters of two Bi∣shops of Thrace, who wrote to the Asiaticks concer∣ning this new Sect, (as the Church of France had done) and therefore there is no necessity of saying that there was a Council assembled upon this occasion.
• * 1.251

  Rhodon.
• a 1.252

  Born in Sicily.] Some have thought that he was an Hebrew, but they are mistaken, for St. Cle∣ment speaking of the Master he had in Aegypt, who was our Pantaenus, Lib. 1. Strom. calls him the Sici∣lian Muse, which shews that he was a Sicilian, for otherwise he would as soon have called him the At∣tick Muse. That Master of his, whom he calls an Hebrew, was another Person that instructed him in Palestine.
• b 1.253

  Presided.] Eusebius, lib. 5. c. 10. and St. Jerome in Catalogo.
• * 1.254

  Pantaenus.
• c 1.255

  Which that Apostle had left there.] S. Jerome tells us, that Pantaenus brought it with him, and that it was in his time preserved in the Library of Alexan∣dria. I cannot easily prevail with my self to believe this Story, and indeed I should rather believe, that this was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Nazarenes owned, which might pass for that of S. Matthew; for why should S. Bartholomew leave an Hebrew Book with Indians?
• a 1.256

  S. Clement.] He was called Titus Flavius Cle∣mens, S. Epiphanius, in the Heresie of the Secundi∣ans, says, that he was called Atheniensis by some, and Alexandrinus by others, which has been the oc∣casion that it was generally believed that he was of Athens, and that he was called Alexandrinus from the name of the Church whereof he was a Priest, but his Country is not certainly known. He was of the Sect of the Stoicks.
• b 1.257

  Disciple of Pantaenus.] S. Clement had several Masters, as he tells us himself, Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 274. He says that he had two in Greece, one of Coelosyria, and the other of Egypt. And two o∣thers in the East, whereof one was an Assyrian, and the other of Palestine, and descended from the He∣brews: But that at last he found out one in Egypt, who was more Excellent than all the rest. This last was Pantaenus, whom he often mentions in his Book of Institutions We do not know who were the o∣ther four. Baronius believes that the Assyrian was Bard-sanes, and he of Palestine, Theophilus of Caesa∣ria, but Bardesanes was not properly an Assyrian, and Theophilus of Caesaria was rather S. Clement's Companion than his Master. Valesius thinks with greater probability, that Tatian was the Assyrian, and Theodotus the Hebrew, under whose Name there is a Fragment of the Institutions at the end of the Works of S. Clement.
• * 1.258

  S. Clement of Alexan.
• c 1.259

  Catechist of the Catechumens, &c.] Eusebius, Book 5. Chap. 10. and Book 6. Chap. 6. and S. Jerom in his Catologue. We have already said, that Pantae∣nus left the School of Alexandria to his Care when he went to preach to the Indians, and it is probable, that after his return they both taught in the same School.
• d 1.260

  About the year two hundred and twenty from the Birth of Christ.] It is generally believed that he died about the year 200 from the Birth of Christ, but he must needs have lived longer; for Pantaenus who was his Master lived to this time, and the Anci∣ents assure us that he survived him. He wrote his Stromata in the time of the Emperor Severus.
• * 1.261

  Book I.
• * 1.262

  Chap. 1. Chap. 2. Chap. 3. Chap. 4.
• * 1.263

  Chap. 5. Chap. 6. Chap. 7.
• * 1.264

  Chap. 8.
• * 1.265

  Chap. 9.
• * 1.266

  Chap. 10.
• * 1.267

  Last Chap.
• * 1.268

  Book II. Chap. 1. Chap. 2. Chap. 3. Chap. 4. Chap. 5. Chap. 6. Chap. 7.
• * 1.269

  Chap. 8. Chap. 10. Chap. 11. and 12. Book III. Chap. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
• * 1.270

  Chap. 6. Chap. 7. and 8. Chap. 9, and 10. Chap. 11. Last Chap.
• e 1.271

  The Books entituled Stromata.] This Book was called, as Eusebius tells us, The Stromatic Commen∣taries of Titus Flavius Clemens concerning the Gno∣sticks, according to the True Philosophy; This Title is at the end of the First Book, opposing the False Gnosticks to the True ones, which are the Sober and Discreet Christians.
• f 1.272

  Choice Particulars.] The Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies a Sheet of Linnen, or a Bag to in∣close Pieces of Tapestry; it likewise signifies a cer∣tain Fish with speckles on the Back. It is here ta∣ken for that neat mixture we see in Tapestry, and it imports as much as Miscellaneous Commentaries or Discourses. Ruffinus translates it, Opus varie contex∣tum; Plutarch wrote a Book with this Title, and Origen wrote another after S. Clement.
• g 1.273

  As being One onely God.] Lib. 1. Paedag. Cap 8. Unus est universorum Pater, ••••••m etiam verbum uni∣versorum, & spiritus sanctus unus, qui & ipse est u∣bique. And Book 3. Chap. 12.

  Let us praise the Father and the Son, says he, the Son because he is our Pedagogue and our Master, together with the Holy Ghost who alone is the Whole, in whom are all Things, and by whom all Things are one, to whom be Glory for ever and ever.

  And again Book 5. pag. 544. The Father is not without the Son, neither the Son without the Father. And Pag. 598. after having quoted some Words of Plato, he understands them of the Trinity; For, says he, the Holy Ghost is the Third, and the Son, by whom all things were made, is the Second.
• * 1.274

  Book IV. Pag. 537. and 565.
• * 1.275

  Book VII. Pag. 756. Book V. Of the Strom. p. 550. Book II. p. 2. Chap. 2. Book III. Pag. 468. and 499.
• h 1.276

  Though not without the Assistances of Divine Grace.] Lib. 5. Stromat. pag. 547. Nam neque fieri potest ut fine libero animi arbitrio & instituto conse∣quamur, neque universum est positum in nostrâ vo∣luntate, quale sit id quod est eventurum. Gratiâ servamur, sed non absque bonis operibus. Et oportet quidem cum naturâ apti simus ad bonum, ad id ali∣quod adhibere studium. Oportet mentem quoque ha∣bere bonam, & quae nullâ retardetur penitentiâ à bo∣ni consequutione. Ad quod maximè divinâ opus est gratiâ, rectâque doctrinâ, castaque & mundâ animi affectione, & patris ad ipsum attractione. And Lib. 4. pag. 518. he says, that it is God which gives us Continence. Pag. 530. he says, that it is Grace that enables us to run our Course without any impediment. Pag. 495. he says, that it is the Power of God which makes us resist Temptations.
• * 1.277

  In Protrep. p. 54. & Sequen∣tibus. Book 1. Paed. Chap. 8. and 9. Book 3. Chap. 11. and 12. Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 3. 11. lib. 3. p. 444. Lib. 6. p. 661. In Protrep. p. 53. & Paed. lib. 1. cap. 9.
• * 1.278

  Lib. 3. Stro∣mat. p. 462, & 465. Lib. 1. Stromat. init. Lib. 7. p. 754.
• i 1.279

  Whose Books are so full of prophane Learning at his.] I believe the Reader will not think it tedi∣ous to read the following Passage of Gentianus Her∣vetus concerning the Learning of S. Clement. Do you desire, says this Author, to read Histories that are very Ancient and very Curious? Read S. Clement who understood all ancient History so perfectly well, that one would think him to have been ignorant of no∣thing that had pass'd in the World. Have you an Esteem and Veneration for the Verses of the ancient Poets and the Answers of the Oracles? You cannot put too high a value upon S. Clement, who quotes Passages from several ancient Poets, whose Works we have lost. Would you be willing to know the Rites and Ceremonies which were observed in the Sacrifices of the Heathen Gods? Read S. Clement, who discovers the most hidden Mysteries of the Pa∣gans. Besides, Is there any one among the Chri∣stians who has any respect for the Superstitions of the Heathens, who commends their Manners and Customs (and I wish to God there were no such Per∣sons left) but if there be any, they may disabuse themselves by reading S. Clement, who clearly makes out the Falshood of the Pagan Religion, so that af∣ter having read it, they cannot but be ashamed of their Folly. have you a mind to understand the O∣pinions and Maxims of the ancient Philosophers? Read S. Clement, who discourses of the Original of Philo∣sophy, of all the Sects of Philosopers, and of their Doctrine, yet so as he always prefers the Philosophy of the Christians before all others, and proves by in∣vincible Arguments, that This is That which is only Divine, whereof God himself is the Author. Would you know the Tenets of the Hereticks who infested the Church in its infancy? S. Clement explains them concisely, and confutes them very solidly and sub∣stantially. Do you seek for Testimonies against the Hereticks of our Times? S. Clement will furnish you with several. Have you a design to correct that abominable corruption of Mannners in this present Age? There is no Author that reproves Vice more severely, that exhorts more powerfully to the practice of Virtue, and that gives better Rules and Instructi∣ons for leading a Christian Life. Lastly have you a mind to re-establish the ancient Discipline of the Church? You cannot have too high an esteem for the Learning and Sanctity of S. Clement, who being a Priest carried himself, and lived after so Holy a Man∣ner, that it were very much to be wished, that there were more Persons in this Age like him.
• * 1.280

  Miltia∣des, &c.
• a 1.281

  In an Ecstasie or fury.] This is taken from the Author against the Heresies of the Montanists, in Eusebius, Book 5. Chap. 17. and the meaning of it is, that true Prophets ought never to deliver them∣selves in a Fury, nor to be out of their right Senses, as the Montanists were. This likewise is the Rule which S. Chrysostom gives for distinguishing the False Prophets from the True. Homil. 29. in Epist. ad Co∣rinth. 8. And S. Jerom, in his Preface upon Nahum, Non enim loquimur in Extasi, ut Montanus, & Pris∣ca, Maximillaque delirant, sed quod Prophetat liber est visionis intelligentis. S. Jerom here uses the Term Ecstasie in the same sense with the Anonymous Author.
• b 1.282

  To the Governors of the Provinces.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eusebius and S. Jerom under∣stood these Words of Emperors; but since there was but one in this Author's time, it is more natural to explain this Expression by Governors of Provin∣ces.
• c 1.283

  If we believe S. Jerom. Eusebius does not say, that Apollonius was a Senator, but S. Jerom affirms it in his Catalogue to Magnus. We cannot tell whe∣ther he knew it certainly, or whether it be onely by Conjecture that he says so. But it is likely, that it was upon the account of his being a Senator, that the Praefectus Praetorio sent him back to the Senate to be Tryed there.
• d 1.284

  His accuser was condemned.] It was his Slave, if we may believe S. Jerom, and 'tis very probable, for he was condemned to have his Bones broken, the ordinary Punishment of Slaves.
• e 1.285

  We do not know who this Author is, nor what was the Title of his Book] Nicephorus calls it the La∣byrinth, and Theodoret, Lib. 2. Haeret. Fabul. con∣firms this Title. Photius, Cod. 48. attributes the Book of the Labyrinth to Caius, and others ascri∣bed it to Origen.
• a 1.286

  Tertullian.] He was called Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus, which distinguishes him from the Con∣sul Tertullus and Tertullian the Martyr.
• b 1.287

  And of the City of Carthage.] He testifies as much himself in his Book De Pallio, c. 2. and in his Apology, c. 9. Witness, says he, the Troops of our Coun∣try, speaking of the Troops under the Proconsul of Carthage. S. Jerom confirms the same in his Chroni∣con, and in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers.
• * 1.288

  Tertullian.
• c 1.289

  And says, that his Father was a Centurion of these Troops, which was no very considerable Employment.] Eusebius seems to say, that Tertullian was a Roman, and a Person of Quality. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. What he says of Tertullian's being well skilled in the Roman Laws, has made some believe, that he was a Lawyer, and indeed there is a Lawyer of the same Name: But it is certain, that he is a different Person from our Tertullian, and Eusebius does not say, that he was a Lawyer, but that he was well versed in the Roman Laws. What Eusebius adds of his Country and his Extraction, is by no means to be maintained, if we do not understand it of the Roman Writers; and that the Sense must be, that Tertullian was one of the most Excellent of all the Latin Authors. Ruffinus has given this Sense to this Passage of Eusebius by translating it, Inter nostros Scriptores admodum clarus. Pamelius says, that Tertullian was a Lawyer, but he brings no good Argument for it, relying only upon the Authority of Trithemius, who is a modern Author.
• d 1.290

  But that he was at first a Heathen.] He himself says, speaking to the Heathens in his Apology, We have been likewise of your Party; Men are not born Chri∣stians, but they become so. And in his Book De Specta∣culis, and in that concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh, chap. 19. and 59. he says, That he had assisted at those Sights and Spectacles, and that he had spent part of his Life in Lewdness.
• e 1.291

  But it is not known when, nor upon what occasion he was converted to the Church.] Pamelius says, that he was converted by the Answer of an Oracle, and Fa∣ther George of Amiens affirms, that it was by a Vi∣sion, but neither of these are to be credited.
• f 1.292

  And Antoninus Caracalla.] S. Jerom affirms, that he flourished under these Emperors, and this appears by his Writings; some have said, that he flourished about the year 160, but they are mistaken.
• g 1.293

  To an extream old Age.] S. Jerom, in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, says, Usque ad Decrepitam aetatem vixisse fertur.
• h 1.294

  That he was not Married till after he was Baptized.] His Wife was a Christian; and he does not say in any place of his Works, that she was converted with him, or that she had converted him; it is therefore more probable, that he Married her after he was a Christian. For there is no likelihood, that while he was a Heathen, he should Marry a Christian Wo∣man; and if she had been converted with him, or that she had converted him, he would without doubt have taken some notice of it in the Books which he wrote to her. [His urging S. Paul's Authority and Command in his second Book to his Wife, when he advises her to marry a Christian if ever she married again, is a strong presumption, that if he married after his Conversion, his Wife was a Christian at that time.]
• i 1.295

  Till he was pretty well advanced in Years.] These Books are composed in the form of a Last Will or Testament; In the first, he exhorts his Wife to pre∣serve her Continency after his Death; a sign that she had but little regard of it in his Life time. In the second, he tells her plainly, that it is a Duty to endeavour to maintain that Continency in their Wi∣dowhood, which they could not preserve in their Married Estate: Which shews, that Pamelius's Opi∣nion is nothing but a groundless Supposition. These Books were written by Tertullian towards the end of his Life, as may be proved. First, by the manner of the Composition, which is in form of a Last Will or Testament. Secondly, because a Man seldom troubles himself to write to his Wife, what would he have her do after his Death, but till he is in years. Thirdly, because though Tertullian was not a thorough-paced Montanist when he wrote those two Books, yet he seems to be leaning very much that way.
• * 1.295.1

  [That is not a ne∣cessary Conse∣quence.]
• k 1.296

  There is no Passage in his Writings from whence it can be concluded, that he was a Priest of the Catholick Church.] There is a Place in his Book De Animâ, c. 9. whence it may be concluded, that he preached in the Church of the Montanists, and that they related to him strange Visions. But as all the Montanists talked after this rate in their Assemblies, it cannot certain∣ly be concluded from hence, that he was a Priest; and we have only the Authority of S. Jerom for it.
• l 1.297

  But S. Jerom affirms it so positively.] In his Trea∣tise of Ecclesiastical Writers, Cum usque ad mediam aetatem Presbyter Ecclesiae permansisset, ad Montani Dog∣ma delapsus est.
• m 1.298

  It is commonly believed, that he was a Priest of the Church of Rome.] That which makes it believed that he was a Roman Priest, is what S. Jerom says of his falling into the Error of the Montanists, because he was provoked by Envy, and the Injuries which he received from the Clergy of that Church. But there is no necessity for all this that he should be at Rome, since there was a sufficient Intimacy and Correspon∣dence between these two Churches, so that it might be easily known at Rome, what was said and done at Carthage, and though he had been then at Rome, yet it would not have followed, that he was Priest of that Church: None of the Ancients affirm it, but on the contrary, Optatus calls him a Carthaginian, as he calls Zephirinus Urbicus, that is, the Bishop of Rome: And also Victorinus Patavionensis. The Prae∣destinatus of Sirmondus calls him plainly, a Presbyter of Carthage.
• n 1.299

  In the beginning of the Third Century.] The Epo∣cha of his Change is certain, for we may easily fix it, because he says in his Book against Praxeas, that this Heretick being come to Rome, hindred the Bishop of that Church from acknowledging the Prophecies of Montanus, that he wrote against him at that time, and had obliged him to revoke his Opinion, that af∣terwards he acknowledged the Paraclet, or Com∣forter. Now it is very likely, that Victor was this Bishop that rejected the Prophecies of Montanus; For Tertullian says, that Praxeas hindred him from con∣senting to these new Prophesies, by urging the Au∣thority of his Predecessors, who could be no other than the Popes Anicetus and Eleutherus, in whose time these new Prophecies of Montanus first began to ap∣pear: So that Tertullian could not be turned till after the Pontificate of Victo; who was Pope from the Year 193, to the Year 201. He was a Montanist when he composed the Books against Marcion, which were written in the Year 207. So that Pamelius, who fixes his Change in the Year 210, is mistaken.
• o 1.300

  Have given different Causes thereof.] Baronius is the Author of the first Opinion, ad An. 201, n. 9. Pamelius, in his Life of Tertullian, of the second. And there are others besides, who have assigned other Causes for his Change, which are all groundless.
• p 1.301

  His Book of the Apology for the Christian Religion was written about the Year 200, from the Birth of Christ.] It is very likely that it was Composed about this time. M. Allix pretends, that it was not written till the Year 211, but his Reasons are but weak. He says, that he alludes in the 47th Chapter to the Book of Praescriptions; but though he here makes use of the term Praescribe, it does not thence follow, that this Book was Composed after that of the Praescriptions. The second Reason is taken from an Eclipse seen at Utica, in the Year 210, to which, says he, Tertullian alludes in the 20th Chapter; but he does not speak at all in this place of any particular Eclipse. The last and principal Reason of M. Allix, is that in the 4th Chapter of the Apology, he speaks of Severus as if he were dead. Severus, says he, A Prince of great Constancy; has he not lately abolish'd by his Authority the Papian Law; which ordains, that one should have Children before the Age in which the Julian Law gives permission to Marry. But this might be said of Severus whilst he was yet living, and it is likely that he abolished this Law (if yet he did abolish it at all, for it was rather Constantine that did it,) in the beginning of his Reign. But what we read in the 5th Chapter, Who are those that have made Laws against the Chri∣stians, 'tis neither Adrian, nor Vespasian, nor Antoni∣nus, nor Severus, might prove that he wrote after the Death of Severus, but we must read Verus, as it is in the later Editions, and not Severus.
• q 1.302

  It is more probable that it was composed in Africa.] Pamelius and several Authors are of Opinion, that he wrote his Apology at Rome, and that he addressed it to the Senate. But there is not one Passage in this Book, that gives any ground for this Conjecture. On the contrary, this Book is Addressed to the Chief Go∣vernours of the Cities. Tertullian speaks of Rome and the Romans, as not being in their City, nor with them. In Chap. 21, 24, 35, and 45. he speaks of the Proconsul, and there was not any at Rome. As to what we say, that it was not Addressed to the Senate, but to the Governors of the Provinces, the beginning of the Apology does evidently shew: Which is this. Si non licet vobis Romani Imperii Antistites, in aperto & in ipso vertice civitatis Praesidentibus ad judicandum pa∣lam dispicere, & coram Examinare quid sit liquidum causa Christianorum, si ad hanc solam speciem Auctoritas vestra de Justitiae Diligentiâ in publico aut timet, aut erubescit inquirere. Si denique domesticis indiciis nimis onerata sectae hujus infestatio obruit viam defensioni, &c. Those which he calls Imperii Antistites are the Gover∣nors and Proconsuls, and that which follows plainly shews it, for he says, that they preside in vertice civi∣tatis, which does not signifie the City of Rome, which is always called Urbs, and what he adds, that it be∣longs to them to examine the Cause of the Chri∣stians, to try them, and to receive Informations against them, does evidently prove, that he speaks of the Governors of Places. Secondly, he does not mention so much as one word of the Senate in the whole Book. Thirdly, he speaks of the Proconsul, as of the Supream Magistrate, Chap. 45. Lastly, he always calls those to whom he Addresses this Work Praesides, a Title which properly agrees to the Gover∣nors of the Provinces.
• r 1.303

  The Discourses concerning publick Sights and Specta∣cles, and of Idolatry.] In the 5th Chapter of the Book concerning Idolatry, he alludes to the Joy at the Birth of Geta; He speaks in his Book concerning Publick Sights and Spectacles, Chap. 7. of the City of Rome, like a Person who was not there, so that this Book could not be made at Rome as has been believed.
• s 1.304

  His Books of the Ornament and Dresses of Women.] The Latin Titles are, De cultu Muliebri, & de habitu Muliebri.
• t 1.305

  His Book of the Testimony of the Soul has no certain Epocha.] It was written after his Apology, as may be concluded from the 5th Chapter.
• v 1.306

  His Books against Marcion are the first of this last sort.] It is evident that he was a Montanist, when he Composed the Books against Marcion; this appears by the 28th Chapter of his First Book, by the 24th of the Third Book, by the 22d of the Fourth Book, and by the 15th of the Fifth Book. In the Fourth Book, Ch. 22. he calls the Catholicks Psychici.
• x 1.307

  He promises his Book of Praescriptions.] Lib. 1. cap. 1. Alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus Haereticos, etiam sine tractatu Doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sit de Praescriptione novitatis; We may affirm, that it was written before, and that he only publish'd it then, that he might confirm some Arguments in his Books against Marcion. Which has given occa∣sion to some, to think that this Book was written by Tertullian, whilst he was yet Orthodox, because he speaks so advantageously for the Church against No∣velties. But he makes use of the very same Princi∣ples, in his Book against Marcion, and against Praxeas. The Catalogue of the Hereticks, where he puts the Montanists in the Number of Hereticks, is not Tertul∣lian's; so that Reason, which might contribute to make it believed, that he wrote his Praescriptions whilst he was a Catholick, is of no consequence.
• y 1.308

  The Book entituled Scorpiacus.] This Book of Scorpiacus was written after the Books against Mar∣cion, as may be seen by the 5th Chapter.
• z 1.309

  The Book De Coronâ.] It was written upon oc∣casion of a Donative granted by the Emperors Anto∣ninus Caracalla, and Severus, to the Soldiers, about the Year 209.
• aa 1.310

  The Book De Pallio.] Scaliger pretends that this was his first Work; and Salmasius on the contrary says, that it was written when he was made Priest. The first believes, that the Cloak was a Habit for all Christians. And the second maintains, that it was only a Habit for the Priests; but both of them are mistaken, for the Christians and Priests wore both long and short Garments indifferently, according to the Customs of the Places where they were. The Cloak was a Habit for Philosophers, and such as made Profession of a more austere Life than ordi∣nary. What is said in the second Chapter of his Book De Pallio, that the triple Virtue of the Empe∣ror had entirely routed the Barbarians, and procu∣red Peace and Tranquility to the People, can no otherwise be understood, but of the latter end of the Reign of Severus, who enjoyed a most profound Peace after he had defeated all his Enemies, and taken in as Partners in the Governments, his two Sons Caracalla and Geta, and this is what Tertullian calls Triplex Imperii Virtus, as when he says, Barbari exclusi, he alludes to the Wall which Severus caused to be built in Britain, to put a stop to the Incursions of the Barbarians.
• bb 1.311

  What is said concerning the State of the Roman Empire, in the Seventh Chapter.] He ascribes in this place the flourishing Condition of the Empire, the Germans beaten back, the Britains hemmed in and secured, the Moors besieged by the Roman Legi∣ons, &c. Which agrees to the time of the Empe∣ror Severus, though this cannot be understood, but of the latter end of his Reign, when after he had Conquered all the Barbarians, he caused that Wall to be built, which we just now mentioned, and dispersed the Roman Legions about the Frontiers of the Empire, as Dion Cassius observes.
• cc 1.312

  We do not certainly know the time when these Books were written against Praxeas, &c.] It is evident, that the Book against Praxeas was Composed after he was a Montanist, supra. In his Book against Hermogenes, he accuses this Heretick of pretending to be Mar∣ried, &c. which is a Reproach exactly agreeable to the temper of the Montanists; And in the Book against the Valentinians, he commends Proclus or Pro∣culus a famous Montanist. This Book was written after his Book against Hermogenes, for he observes there, that he had already written against this He∣retick.
• dd 1.313

  About the Year 213.] Severus, says he, the Fa∣ther of Antoninus, had some regard for the Chri∣stians.
• ee 1.314

  The two Books to the Nations composed about the same time.] In the First Book, Chap. 17. he alludes to the Titles of Antoninus Caracalla, who caused himself to be called Parthicus and Germanicus; and in the same place, Chap. 9. he says, That there was not yet elapsed 300 Years from the Death of Jesus Christ to his own time, which shews, that the Third Age was then already advanced. Besides, that these Books were written since his Apology, which is the Subject of this, and which he here enlarges, and polishes, and puts into order in these two Books, wherein we may find several Phrases and Expressions taken from the Books which he wrote after he was a Montanist.
• ff 1.315

  Which Gennadius Bishop of Marseilles attributes to Salvian.] In Catalog. cap. 67. In morem Graecorum de principio Genesis usque ad conditionem hominis composuit versu Hexametro. This is true of that Poem ascribed to Tertullian.
• gg 1.316

  Perhaps that which was composed by Verecundus.] Isidore de Viris illustribus, cap. 7. Verecundus Africanus Episcopus studiis liberalium Literarum disertus edidit carmine dactylo, duos modicos, brevesque libellos, quorum primum de resurrectione, & judicio scripsit, alterum de paenitentia. The Poem concerning Judgment is also concerning the Resurrection. Garcias says, that he had seen the Poem concerning Pennnce, and he re∣peats the first Verse of it, which is written after the same manner as the beginning of this Poem con∣cerning Judgment; but yet there are some Passages, which seem to come from a later Author than Vere∣cundus, who, as it is believed, lived in the Fifth Century.
• hh 1.317

  In the Poem against Marcion.] Tertullian, in his Book De Animâ, chap. 57. says, that it was not the Soul of Samuel, but only a Phantasm, which the Witch raised up; and the Author of the Poem in his third Book supposes, that it was Samuel himself that was raised, to acquaint Saul what was to befall him. Tertullian, in his Book of Praescriptions, makes S. Clemens to succeed S. Peter; but this Author places him the Fourth, making two Popes of Cletus and Anacletus.
• * 1.318

  This must be owned to have been a great piece of Ingenuity in a Doctor of Sorbon, when the Per∣secution of the Hugonors was at the height in France.
• ii 1.319

  He expresses himself after such a manner as is not very agreeable to that which has been made use of in the following Ages.] He says first, that the WORD was begotten of the Father, when God created the World; but he acknowledges at the same time, that he was in God, and a Person distinct from the Father from all Eternity. And so the whole Ambi∣guity lies in the Term Generation, which he does not understand of the Eternal Procession of the Son, but of a certain Prolation or Emission without, which he supposes was done at the Instant of the Creation of the World, because it is by the WORD that God Created it, and doth still govern it. And this ap∣pears evidently in Tertullian's Book, and we ought not to wonder, if in his Book against Hermogenes, he says, that there was a certain time, when the Father was not the Father, and when he began to be the Son, because he believed that he had not the Quality and Name of Son, 'till this World was Created, though he was in God before, and distinguished from the Father from all Eternity. Secondly, he says, that the Father is invisible, and the Son visible; but in that Sense which we have explained, that is to say, that the Son, who has always rendred himself visible to Men, by taking several Forms, under which he has appeared to them; and lastly, by making him∣self Man. Thirdly, He seems in some Places to ••••∣sinuate, that even the WORD, as it is the WORD is inferior to the Father; but this must be under∣stood of an Inferiority, which the Divines call of O∣riginal, that is to say, (as he explains it himself) be∣cause he has received all from the Father, for he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expresly in several places, that the Father and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Son are of one, and the same Substance. Fourthly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sometimes makes use of the Word Substance, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Person Subsisting, which is an usual thing amo•…•… the Ancients before the Council of Nice, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 amongst some of them after it.
• * 1.320

  This is also ingenuously taken notice of, because the Church of Rome allows Women to Baptize in Case of Necessity.
• kk 1.321

  These three Faults in Style are indeed to be found in the greatest part of the African Writers.] We must ex∣cept Minutius, S. Cyprian and Lactantius, they had quite worn off that way of Writing, though S. Cy∣prian still retains some relish of it.
• ll 1.322

  And thus Learned Men have always been, and are still extreamly divided.] We shall here set down some Judgments made by the Ancients and Moderns con∣cerning Tertullian: S. Cypri••n, by the Relation of S. Jer••m, who was told it by a Priest that had heard it from a Secretary of S. Cyprian's, used every day to read something of his Works; and when he called for his Book, he said, Give me my Master. And in truth S. Cyprian has imitated him, and has borrow∣ed a great many things from him. He has likewise composed the greatest part of his Works with the same design as Tertullian, as his Book of Idolatry, in imitation of Tertullian's Apology. His Books De Disci∣plina & habit•• ••uliebri, de zelo & liv••re, de Oratione Dominica, de opere & el•…•…synis, were written in imitation of those of Tert••llian upon the same Sub∣ject. Eusebius says of Tertullian, that he was one of the ablest of the Latin Writers, and that he has ob∣tained a great Reputation in all the Churches.

  L••ctantius passes the Judgment which we have al∣ready related, which is not very advantageous to him. S. Hilary says in his Commentary upon S. Mat∣thew, that the Error into which he fell, has taken away the Authority of his Books, which deserved Approbation. C••nsequens error hominis detraxit scrip∣tis probabilibus Authoritatem.

  S. Jerom speaks sometimes very advantageously of him, as in his Catalogue, where he calls him a Man of a quick and sharp Wit; and in his Epistle to Magnu••, he says that there was not any Author, who had more Learning and Subtilty; but in other pla∣ces he reprehends his Errors and Defects. In his A∣pology against ••uff••••us, he says, I commend his Wit, but condemn his Heresies; and in his Book against Hel∣vidius- who opposed to him Tertullian's Authority, he makes this Answer, What I have to say to you con∣cerning Tertullian, is, that he is not of the Church. Ecclesiae hominem non esse.

  S. Austin commends Tertullian's Style, and always condemns his Error; in his Book De Genesi at Lite∣ram, he says, that Tertullian having an excellent Ap∣prehension, did sometime discover the Truth, and that he could not forbear sometimes to establish it e∣ven against his own Opinions.

  Vincentius Lirinensis gives a Character of Tertullian in these Words; Tertullian, says he, was among the Latins what Origen was among the Greeks, that is to say, the first and the most considerable Man they had. In word, Is there any Author more knowing and better versed, both in Ecclesiastical and Prophane Learning? Has he not comprized in his vast and pr••digious Memory; all the Philosophy of the S••ges, the Maxims of the dif∣ferent Sects, with their Histories, and what else app••••tained to them? Did he ever undertake to attack any thing, which he has not almost always, either pierced by the Vivaci∣ty of his Wit, or overthrown by the Force and Weight of his Reasonings? And who can sufficiently ext••l the Beau∣ties of his Discourse, which is so well guarded, and ••inked together by a continual C••nin of Argum••nts, that he even forces the Cons••nt of those whom he cannot per∣suade? His Words are as so many Sentences. His An∣swers are almost so many Victories, as has been suffici∣ently experienced by the Marcions, the Apelles's, the Pra••eas's, the Hermogenes's, the Jews, the Gentiles, the Gnosticks, and a great many others, whose Blasphe∣mies he has silenced by great numbers of Books that have ••een as somany Thunderbolts which have reduced them to Ashes. And yet though ••e has had all these Advantages, he did not continue in the Ancient and Universal Faith of the Church, and he has proved himself less faithful than El•…•…t. At last he altered his Judgment, and his Er∣ror, as has been observed by that blessed C••••fess••r S. Hil••∣ry, by which means he has taken away that Authority fr•••• his Writings, which otherwise they would have deserved.

  I shall take no notice of the Judgment of Trithem••∣us, Rhenanus, Politian, Pa••elius, Rigaltius, and some other Moderns, which every body may consult upon occasion, and I shall conclude with the Judgments given by two of our French Authors, who have both given us Characters of Tertullian, but in a diffe∣rent way.

  The first is the famous M. Balsac, in a Letter written to Rigaltius, which is the Second of the Fifth Book.

  I expect (says he) the Tertullian whic•• you are publishing, that he may learn me that Pa∣tience, for which he gives such admirable Instru∣ctions; He is an Author to whom your Preface would have reconciled me, if I had had an Aversi∣on for him, and if the Harshness of his Expressions, and the Vices of his Age had dissuaded me from reading him; but I have had an Esteem for him for a long time, and as hard and crabbed as he is, yet he is not at all unpleasant to me. I have found in his Writings, that Black Light which is mention∣ed in one of the ancient Poets, and I look upon his Obscurity with the same Pleasure, as that of Ebony which is very bright, and neatly wrought. This has always been my Opinion; for as the Beauties of Africa are not less amiable, though they are not like ours, and as S••ph••••isba has eclipsed several Italian Ladies, so the Wits of that Country are not less pleasing with this foreign sort of Eloquence▪ and I shall prefer him before a great many affected Imitators of Cicer••; And though we should grant to the nicest Criticks, that his Style is of Iron, yet they must likewise own to us, that out of this Iron he has forged most excellent Weapons; and that he has defended the Honour and Innocence of Christi∣anity; that he has quite routed the Valentinians, and struck Marcion to the very Heart.

  The second Character of Tertullian, is that which Father M••llebranche gives us in his Search after Truth, in his Se∣cond Book, Chap. 3.

  Tertullian (says he) wa•• without doubt a Man of extraordinary Learning, but he had more Memory than Judgment. He excelled more in his Fancy and Imagination, than in Judgment and true extent of Thought. Ther•• is no doubt to be made, but that at last he was an Enthusiast, in that sense which I have explained it, and that he had almost all the Qualities which I have attributed to these Fanaticks. That Respect which he had for the Visions of Montanus, and for his Prophetesses, is an unquestionable Proof of th•• Weakness of his Judgment. That Fire, those Heats, those Enthusiasms upon little Subjects, do evi∣dently discover the Extravagancy of his Fancy: How many Irregular Transports are there in his Hyperboles and Figures? How many Pompous and Magnificent Reasons, which prove only by their glittering, and which persuade only by stunning and dazling of the Understanding!

  He afterwards endeavours to shew that this is a true Picture, by making some Excerptions out of his Book De Palli••, which he thinks to be the most proper ••ook to justi∣fie what he affirm••.
• * 1.323

  Recherche 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Verité.
• a 1.324

  A Priest of the Church of Rome.] Eusebius and S. Jerom tell us plainly, that he was a Priest, and that he lived in Zephyrin's time; but they do not say that he was a Roman. His Treatise was Composed in Greek; Photius is the First, who affirms expresly, that he was a Priest of the Church of Rome; and he adds, that he was ordained Bishop of the Gentiles.
• b 1.325

  By way of Dialogue.] Eusebius calls it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, a Book of Dialogues; and Caius and Proclus, seem to have been the Persons who spake therein, for Eusebius in his Third Book, relates the Words of Proclus taken from this Dialogue.
• c 1.326

  Proclus or Proculus.] The Sect of the Monta∣nists was divided into two Parties, the one were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is ob∣served in that small Abridgment of Heresies, at the end of Tertullian's Praescriptions. It is thought that this Proclus was the same with Proculus the Affrican, who was likewise a Montanist, and of whom Tertul∣lian speaks; but this is not likely; for he, against whom Caius writes was a Greek, and was called Proclus, and not Proculus.
• * 1.327

  Caius.
• d 1.328

  The little Labyrinth.] We have observed, that Eusebius does not Name the Author of this Fragment, but that Theodoret ascribes it to the Author of the Labyrinth, and on the other hand, Photius informs us, that Caius was the Author of that Book, and proves it, because the Author of the Labyrinth says, That he wrote a Treatise concerning the Universe, whence it would follow, that it was Caius who was the Au∣thor of this Fragment; but I should rather believe it to be taken out of the Book, which he Composed against Artemon. Eusebius says, That the Book from whence he produces this Fragment, was written a∣gainst his Heresie, and the Passages which he brings from thence do clearly shew it.
• e 1.329

  The Philosopher Alcinous.] He wrote a Treatise, wherein he makes a Comparison between Aristotle and Plato.
• a 1.330

  Bishop of Ostia in Italy.] S. Jerom, in his Cata∣logue, says, that he does not know of what City he was Bishop. Gelasius, in his Book De duabus Naturis, citing Hippolitus, says, that he was Metropolitan of Arabia. Nicephorus makes him Bishop of Pontus: It is more likely that he was a Bishop of Arabia, than of Italy: For it is certain that he was of the East, and S. Jerom observes in one of his Homilies, that Origen was his Scholar; some have said, that he was the Disciple of S. Clemens, and this is very probable.

  [Monsieur le Moyne's Conjecture, that Hippolitus was Bishop of Portus Romanus, now called Aden in Arabia is most probable; for it was an easie Mistake for those, who knew nothing of this Arabian Portus, to imagine, that he was called Portuensis from the Por∣tus Romanus, by Ostia in Italy, especially since there has been so current a Tradition of his suffering Mar∣tyrdom in Italy.]
• b 1.331

  Suffered Martyrdom.] S. Jerom, in the Preface to his Commentaries upon S. Matthew, calls him a Mar∣tyr, and in the Martyrologies, he is rankt in the Number of Martyrs. It is certain, that he suffered Martyrdom in Italy, and perhaps at Ostia: His Acts are forged and counterfeit. It is affirmed herein, that he suffered Martyrdom under Claudius, it should have been under Alexander; and Ulpianus, who is mentioned in these Acts, perhaps may be Ulpius, who was Governour of Rome in the time of this last Emperor.
• * 1.332

  Hippo∣litus.
• c 1.333

  Which he composed upon the Holy Scripture.] S. Jerom says, that Origen being excited by his Friend Am∣brosius, undertook to write Commentaries upon the Sacred Scripture, in imitation of Hippolitus.
• d 1.334

  But there are other Works.] 'Tis very like that it is a Collection of Homilies, which was extant in Theo∣doret's time, who cites several of them, which per∣haps might make a part of his Commentaries upon the Scripture.
• e 1.335

  It is very uncertain whether this be the Treatise of Anti-Christ.] The Books of Hippolitus were Entituled, Of the Resurrection, and of Anti-Christ, according to the Relation of Eusebius, and S. Jerom: This is Entitul∣ed, Of the End of the World, &c. This Style is mean and Childish, whereas that of Hippolitus was grave and lofty. This Treatise begins with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There are a great many trifling Conjectures concern∣ing the Birth, and the Life of Anti-Christ; he believes that he is to be a Devil; he says that S. John is not dead, which is contrary to ancient Tradition: He cites the Apocalypse instead of Daniel; he holds that the Souls of Men have been from all Eternity, which agrees with Origen's Opinion: In a word, this Trea∣tise is worth very little.
• f 1.336

  The Principles of the Ancients concerning the Trinity.] These Principles are, that the WORD was from all Eternity in the Father, as being his Wisdom, his Pow∣er, and his Counsel; that when he designed to create the World, he did, if I may so say, put him without him; and this is that which they call Generation: That it is by him that he created the World; and that he governs it; that it is he who made himself visible to Men; who spake to the Patriarchs and the Pro∣phets; who gave the Law; and who at last became Incarnate; that conformable to this Oeconomy, we acknowledge Three Persons in God, which never∣theless make but one only God; that the WORD be∣fore he took Flesh, had not perfectly the Quality of the WORD, and that we may say, that he was be∣gotten of the Father; That we ought to believe that the WORD descending from Heaven into the Womb of the Virgin Mary, took therein a reasonable Soul, and everything that belongs to human Nature, Sin only excepted, and all this in order to save Man, who fell by the Sin of Adam, and to render him Immor∣tal, &c.
• g 1.337

  Several Fictions of the modern Greeks.] Such as these following, that S. Andrew was Crucified upon an Olive-Tree: That the Relicks of S. John were not found in his Sepulchre, that S. Bartholomew was Cru∣cified with his Head downwards; that S. Thomas Preached among the Magi; that he was run tho∣rough in four Places with a Lance made of Deal in the City of Salamis; that Thaddaeus preached the Go∣spel in Mesopotamia; Things which are taken from the Fictions of the modern Greeks, as from Sophronius and others.
• h 1.338

  Concerning the Seventy two Disciples.] This is ma∣nifestly the same with the false Dorotheus.
• i 1.339

  Near Rome.] Near the Church of S. Laurence, in in a Place where there was in all probability a Chappel to Hippolitus. The Statue is of Marble, representing Hippolitus sitting in a Chair, on the sides of which, there are two Cycles, for Eight Years each; on the Right side is that of the 14th Days of the Moons, and on the Left, that for the Sundays. On the side of this Cycle, there is a Catalogue of Hippolitus's Works, which we have already set down. This Canon is the most ancient Paschal Cycle that we have.

  [The Catalogue of Hippolitus's Works, taken from the Roman Marble, is so very uncor∣rect in Monsieur Du Pin, that I shall translate it anew from the Greek Copy, with some few Notes upon it to explain it.]

  • Commentaries upon the Psalms.
  • Of the Witch of Endor.
  • Commentaries upon the Gospel according to S. John, and the Revelations.
  • Of Spiritual Gifts.
  • Apostolical Tradition.
  • Chronicles; or Chronological Accounts of Time.
  • Against the Greeks, and against Plato, or concerning the Universe.
  • An Exhortation to Severina.
  • A Demonstration of the Time of Easter, as it is in the Table.
  • Odes upon all the Scriptures.
  • Of God and the Resurrection of the Flesh.
  • Of Good, and whence cometh Evil.
• a 1.340

  Accounts of Time.] This Dr. Cave joyns with the next Line, and so makes but one Title thus, Chroni∣cles to the Greeks: but as the Marble lies in Gruter, (from whom Dr. Cave transcribed it) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 makes one Line, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 another; now for the most part one Line makes a whole Title, where the Conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does not connect more to∣gether, especially where a compleat Sense can be made by such a Division: But here the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be joyned with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and a Dis∣course upon a Philosophical Subject, concerning the Universe against Plato and other Greek Philosophers, has no great Coherence with a Chronology.
• b 1.341

  Severina.] This according to Monsieur le Moyne is faulty, and should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Severa Augusta; and his Reason is, because Theodo∣ret speaks of a Letter written by this Hippolitus to a certain Queen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This Reason is not sufficient to me, for Inscriptions upon Marbles, when drawn by skilful Men, are Copyed by the Graver with more Care than ordinary Books by Transcribers: And because we cannot tell who this Severina was, therefore it does not follow either, that Hippolitus did not write such a Letter to her, or that he might not write another to an Empress, which Theodoret might have seen and quoted.
• c 1.342

  All the Scriptures.] This Du Pin has rightly trans∣lated; Le Moyne tells us, that it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon all Heresies. Heresies seem to be as im∣proper things to write Hymns upon, as one would wish. But the Historical Parts of Scripture will af∣ford Matter enough for the loftiest Genius to work upon. Dr. Cave does deservedly throw aside Le Moyne's Conjecture, though it seems strange that he should not discern that the received Reading was true.

  Scaliger's Conjecture of the two first Lines, which are almost all eaten away, is too rash; he takes the Letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be parts of the Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from whence he concludes, that Hip∣politus wrote Commentaries upon the Seven Peniten∣tial Psalms; but (as Dr. Cave observes, that Word applied to those Psalms was unknown in that Age, and what to put in the room of it, is hard to assign, and so I left it out.
• * 1.343

  Iter Italicum.
• k 1.344

  Lastly, Theodoret relates some considerable Frag∣ments of Hippolitus.] He cites some from an Orati∣on upon these words of Isaiah, Dominus pascit me, &c. from his Sermon upon Hannah and Elkanah, from a Homily upon the beginning of Isaiah, from a Book concerning the Distribution of Talents; and Lastly, From a Letter to a Queen (which some be∣lieve to be Mammea, the Mother of Alexander, o∣thers, one called Severa, whose Name is mentioned in the Catalogue of this Authors Works, which was on the side of his Statue; from an Oration upon Canticles, from an Interpretation of the Second Psalm, and from the Three and twentieth Oration upon the Two Thieves. See the Tradition related by Theo∣doret at the end of his Three Dialogues.
• a 1.345

  Geminianus or Geminus.] He is called by Eu∣sebius in his Chronicon Geminianus; and by S. Jerom, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, Ge∣minus.
• * 1.346

  Geminia∣nus or Ge∣minus.
• * 1.347

  Alexan∣der.
• a 1.348

  An Election so extraordinary as this.] There were were two things in this Ordination which were New, and contrary to the Laws of the Church. The first was the Translation of a Bishop to another See: The Second, the making a Coadjutor to a Bishop whilst living.
• b 1.349

  Who is now united.] It appears by this, that A∣lexander was not only Coadjutor, but that he alone had the Care of the Church, that Narcissus did not concern himself with any thing, and that he had no more than barely the Honour.
• c 1.350

  As it is believed of Alexandria. S. Jerom believes that it was S. Clement of Alexandria, and this may very well be, For he lived 'till this time, and he was intimately acquainted with Alexander, to whom he Dedicated a Book concernin the Ecclesiastical Rule. Eusebius, Lib. 6. cap. 13.
• a 1.351

  Who was of Palestine.] Some have confounded him with Sextus Africanus of Lybia; but this is an Error: For our Author was of Palestine, and lived there, whereas the other was only of Lybia.
• b 1.352

  Older than Origen.] In the Letter which he wrote to Origen, he calls him his Son, and he conti∣nues his Chronicle no farther then to the Time of Heliogabalus, which shews that he was older than Origen.
• * 1.353

  Julius A∣fricanus.
• c 1.354

  To confer with him.] Heraclas was undoubtedly Bishop of Alexandria, when he came into this City. He says as much himself in his Chronicle, according to the Relation of Eusebius, Lib. 6. cap. 3. and of Bede de Sex. aet. Pag. 86. of Ado, and others.
• d 1.355

  By the Emperor Alexander.] This Embassy was under Alexander the Son of Mammea, and not under Heliogabalus. That which made Eusebius mistake, is because Africanus's Chronicle went no farther than the time of Heliogabalus.
• e 1.356

  And composed an exact Chronicle.] Eusebius gives it the Name of a Chronography, and S. Jerom stiles it a History of the Times: Photius and Bede call it a Chronicle. It contained the Origine and Succession of all the Monarchies and Commonwealths, and he annext to the end thereof, a kind of Table, called a Canon, wherein he disposed under every Year, what he had before observed Successively. S. Basil cites a Passage from thence, relating to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, in the 29th Chapter of his Book, de Spiritu Sancto.
• f 1.357

  The Reign of Heliogabalus.] Photius, who had seen it, says that his Chronicle went no farther than the Reign of Macrinus. But the Computation of years, and a Fragment related by Scaliger, clearly shew, that he continued it to the time of Heliogabalus.
• g 1.358

  Is the Work of another Africanus.] These Books, Entituled Cesti, were Discourses containing nothing but prophane Learning, they were so called à Cesto Veneris: They treated of Herbs, and particularly of those that had any Faculty in procuring Love. The Author of this Book was of Lybia; he called himself Sextus Africanus, or rather Africanus Cestus. He was probably a Heathen, as the Title, and the Subject of his Work sufficiently shew. There is a Book at∣tributed to one Africanus, cited by Politian, under the Name of Cestus, being a Manuscript in the King's Library, but not the same which Photius speaks of: It was lately published.
• a 1.359

  A Lawyer at Rome.] Not only Lactantius and S. Hierom assure us that he was of this Profession; but this likewise appears by the beginning of his Dialogue, where he says, That it being Vacation time, he had no Business at the Hall.
• b 1.360

  In the begining of the Third Century.] The Anci∣ents do not fix precisely the time wherein he lived. S. Hierom, in his Catalogue, wherein he keeps the Order of Time, places him between Tertullian and S. Cyprian. It is evident that Minutius has taken se∣veral Thoughts from Tertullian, and that S. Cyprian, in his Book Of the Vanity of Idols, has transcribed in several Places the Words of Minutius. This makes it probable that he was an African, and his Style sa∣vours a little of Africa.
• * 1.361

  Minutius Felix.
• c 1.362

  Octavius.] He is also called Januarius, and Ceci∣lius is named Natalis; and Minutius Felix, Marcus. It would be rather to divine, than to believe, that these were the Januarius and Natalis, Bishops of Africa, who lived in S. Cyprian's time: It would have been more likely that Octavius and Caecilius were imaginary Names in the Dialogue, if we had not been told that they are their proper Names.
• d 1.363

  That the Soul shoul•…•…ie with the Body.] He says, That there is nothing after Death, as there was no∣thing before the Production; and that being made of nothing, it shall likewise be renewed of nothing.
• e 1.364

  Four times.] The first by Sabaeus, according to the Manuscript of Rome, in the Year 1542. The second in Germany by Gelenius. The third in Holland, at Leyden, in the Year 1552. The fourth at Basil, by Erasmus, in 1560.
• * 1.365

  Ammo∣nius.
• a 1.366

  Master of Plotinus and Origen.] Porphyry says, in Plotinus's Life, That this Philosopher, when he was twenty years old, came to hear Ammonius; that he was his Disciple for eleven years; and that he had another Disciple named Origen. But, as we shall observe elsewhere, this is a different Person from the famous Origen. Nevertheless, Eusebius assures us, That our Origen was likewise his Scholar, and it seems undeniable, and we must needs confess, that there were two Origens, who were Disciples to Am∣monius.
• b 1.367

  Flourished in Alexandria.] There was another Ammonius, a Philosopher likewise, who lived after the Council of Chalcedon. He was somewhat older than Origen, and a Platonist.
• a 1.368

  Origen.] There is not any Ecclesiastical Author, whose Life we have more exactly. Eusebius, who was his great Admirer, has described it very parti∣cularly. 'Tis from him that we have taken, with∣out citing him, almost all that we have related con∣cerning him. We must add thereunto S. Hierom in his Catalogue, and in several other Places. Ruffinus against S. Hierome; S. Epiphanius in the 64th Heresie; Photius in the 118th Volume, where he has given an Abridgment of the Apology of Pamphilus, and what Origen says of himself, Tom. 6. in Matth. & alibi. We have also made use of the Assistance of the Mo∣derns, and particularly of that famous Work of Hu∣etius, intituled Origeniana; of the Life of Tertullian and Origen, written in French by a worthy Man; which we say as much to do them Justice, as to take off from our selves the Imputation of being a Plagi∣ary. [Our Author means Dr. Allix, Treasurer of the Church of Sarum, who had a great Esteem paid to him in his own Country for his extraordinary Learning, till the late Persecution forced him hither for Relief.
• b 1.369

  Was born in the City of Alexandria, about the year 185 from the Birth of Christ.] S. Epiphanius says, That he was an Alexandrian. Eusebius says, That he was seventeen years old at the time of the Perse∣cution of Severus, which was in the year 202 from the Birth of Christ, and by consequence he was born in 185.
• c 1.370

  He had moreover that of Adamantius.] Photius be∣lieves that he had this Name by reason of the strength of his Reasonings. S. Hierom says, That he had it because he resisted Errors like a Diamond. But this is only guessing: we may say the same of those who seek for the Etymology of the Name of Origen, out of a needless Curiosity.
• * 1.371

  Origen.
• d 1.372

  He had for his Master in Philosophy, the famous Ammonius.] There were two Origens Disciples to Ammonius: The first of whom, Porphyry speaks of in the Life of Plotinus, and Longinus, who wrote no∣thing but a small Treatise of Daemons, and lived but to the Reign of Gallienus, and who was Porphyry's Disciple and Friend, which does not agree with our Origen, as has been observed by Valesius and Huetius.
• e 1.373

  And which he himself afterwards condemned, though he might do it upon a good Motive.] Eusebius, his great Advocate, speaks of it in such a manner as shews he was ashamed of it. The Passages where Origen him∣self has condemned it, are in the 15th Sermon upon S. Matthew, Chap. 19. Ver. 12. and against Celsus, Book 7. We do not know whether he made use of Iron, or of some particular Simple; nor is it any great matter if we did know it.
• f 1.374

  In the beginning of the Reign of Antoninus, that he went to Rome.] Baronius places this Voyage under Heliogabalus, and says that Origen was sent for to Rome by Mammaea; but he is mistaken, for Mammaea caused him to come to Antioch, and not to Rome.
• g 1.375

  That Work which is called the Hexapla.] See Valesius upon Eusebius, where he proves that the Hexapla do comprehend six entire Versions, and that the seventh was only upon the Psalms. Eusebius writes, that they were composed at this time. S. Epiphanius be∣lieves that they were made at Tyre. As they are great Works, and tedious to compose, 'tis likely that he began them then, and finished them afterwards.
• h 1.376

  About some Ecclesiastical Affairs.] This Business was without doubt to confute Heresies which were at that time very numerous in Achaia, as S. Hierom and Ruffinus relate. 'Tis probable it was in this Voy∣age that he wrote, whilst he was at Nicomedia, (as he himself observes) his Letter to Africanus concerning the History of Susanna. It was likewise at this time that he convinced two Hereticks of falsifying the Conferences which he had with them, and of making him say what he never said. Ruffinus relates this in the Book de Adul. lib. Orig.
• i 1.377

  Accused him in a Council of the Bishops of Egypt.] Photius, Cod. 118. makes mention of these two Councils, and S. Hierom. Lib. 2. in Ruff. c. 5.
• l 1.378

  The Sentence which was given against him by Deme∣trius continued under his Successors.] Gennadius says, That Theophilus reports that Heraclas drave Origen out of the Church; and the Author of the Life of St. Pa∣chomius, says the same thing, as well as Peter of A∣lexandria, cited by Justinian in his Letter against O∣rigen. It is most certain that the Sentence given a∣gainst him was not revoked, and that not one of the Egyptians would have any thing to do with him.
• m 1.379

  A Letter to the Emperor Philip, and one to Sever•••• his Wife.] Some have believed that this Emperor was a Christian, and say that Babylas deprived him from the Communion of the Church till he had repented for the Murthers which he had committed; but this Story is very uncertain.
• n 1.380

  But he endured all with an undaunted Resolution.] S. Epiphanius accuses him for approaching to the Hea∣then Altars, and for making as if he would offer In∣cense to the Gods: But this Story, and almost every thing that Epiphanius says concerning Origen, is fa∣bulous, and invented by some Enemy to Origen, who deceived S. Epiphanius, a Man easily imposed upon. To shew that this Story is false, 'tis sufficient to ob∣serve, that even Origen's greatest Enemies, as Theo∣philus, S. Hierom, Justinian, &c. who have omitted nothing to cry him down, have taken no notice at all of it; and that his Defenders, Eusebius and Pam∣philius, are so far from excusing him from this Crime, that they have on the contrary commended his Con∣stancy and Resolution. 'Tis true, S. Epiphanius does not say that this hapned in the Persecution of Decius, as Nicephorus does; but in what time soever they fix this Accident, it is equally overthrown by the Ob∣servation we just now made. It is also less probable, when it is referred to the time of Maximinus's Per∣secution; for what likelihood is there that Origen, after having committed so gross a Fault, should be honoured, as he was, by the Bishops of Palestine?
• op 1.381

  He died in the Year 252 from the Birth of Christ, and in the 66th Year of his Age.] According to Euse∣bius, Lib. 7. cap. 11. he died in the first Year of the Reign of Gallus; and S. Hierom, in his 65th Epistle, written 400 years after Christ, says, That it was 150 years after Origen's Death. It is certain, accord∣ing to Eusebius, that in the Year 202 Origen was se∣venteen years old, and that in the third year of the Emperor Philip he was above sixty years old, So that if we suppose him to have lived but sixty six years, as S. Hierom assures us in his Book of Ecclesiastical Wri∣ters, he must have died in the beginning of the Reign of Gallus, in the Year 252; but if he lived sixty nine years, as Eusebius writers, he must have liv∣ed to the end of the Reign of Gallus; that is to say, till the year 254 or 255.
• q 1.382

  Yet they are nothing in comparison to what he has written.] It is certain that he composed a very great Number of Books; and he made them with that ease, that he could hardly find Scribes enough, as both his Friends and Enemies agree. S. Hierom in his 65th Letter to Pammachius, speaking of Origen, says, Who is there of you that can read as many Books as he has composed? And in another Place, he says, That he compiled an innumerable company of Books. Theophilus says the same thing. Eustathius says, That he filled the World with his Works. Vincentius Liri∣nensis affirms, That none has written more than him; and it is upon this Account that he had the Name gi∣ven him of Chalcenterus, and Syntacticus. S. Epiphanius and Ruffinus say, That he writ 6000 Volumes. S. Hi∣erom seems to dispute it, telling us, That there is not not the third part of them in Eusebius's Cata∣logue. By the Word Volumes, we must not under∣stand such Tomes as are now adays, but only small Works; so every Homily, every part of a Book, is in this sense a Volume: so that we need not admire, though he had written 6000 Volumes.
• r 1.383

  Are translated by Ruffinus and others with so much Liberty.] Ruffinus says it himself in the Conclusion to his Version of the Commentaries upon the Ro∣mans; and S. Hierom also somewhere upbraids him with it. And besides, this appears by the Translati∣on it self, which is full of Figures and Allusions to Latin Words, of Terms taken in another sence than what they were in Origen's Time, where the Trini∣ty and other Mysteries are expressed in such Terms as were not used till after the Council of Nice, and where there are Points of Discipline more modern than Origen's Age; which has given occasion to those who have not considered the Liberty that Ruffi∣nus took of adding or leaving out what he pleased, to doubt whether the greatest part of these Works were Origen's or no. The Liberty which Ruffinus has given himself is still more evident, by what he has written in the Prologue to his Version of the Commentary upon the Epistle to Romans, which he says he has Abridged by above the half. S. Hierom's Versions are not more exact; and the most faulty of all is that of an ancient Translator, who has inter∣preted the Commentaries upon S. Matthew.
• s 1.384

  He wrote two Books of the Resurrection.] S. Hierom in Ru••••in. lik. 2. Invect. says, That Origen composed two Books, and two Dialogues of the Resurection. The same in his 6th Epistle cites the 4th Book of the Resurrection. Methodius wrote against this Work.
• t 1.385

  The Treatise de Principiis, divided into four Books, and ten Books of Stromata.] This last Book was composed in imitation of that of S. Clement of Alex∣andria; witness S. Hierom, Ep. 84. who says, That Origen compared therein the Opinions of the Philo∣sophers and Christians, and proved our Doctrines from Plato, Aristotle, Numenius and Cornutus. In the tenth Book he explained the Epistle to the Galatians, and some Passages of Daniel.
• u 1.386

  And some Discourses and Letters which Eusebius had collected.] Eusebius has related a Fragment of that which he wrote to his Father, being then very young, lib. 6. cap. 2. Item, of another against those who accused him of applying himself too much to the Study of Human Learning, Chap. 19. He makes mention in the 28th Chapter of the Letters which he wrote in the time of the sixth Persecution; after∣wards in the 36th Chapter, of a Letter to the Em∣peror Philip, and of one to Severa his Wife; and lastly, of one to Fabianus, and of several others, cited at large in the 39th Chapter. S. Hierom in his Catalogue, cites the three last, together with a Let∣ter to Beryllus. Ruffinus cites a Letter to his Friends, Lib. de Adult. lib. Origenis; where he complains that some had falsified his Writings. In the 13th Chap∣ter of Philochalia, there is part of one set down to Gregory Thaumaturgus; ••edr••nus and Suidas have pre∣served a Fragment of another Letter.
• x 1.387

  Concerning the Explanation of those of the Old.] S. Hierom in Praefat. ad lib. Hebr. Nom. The Author of the Orthodox Questions, attributed to S. Justin, Quest. 82, and 86.
• y 1.388

  Theodoret often cites our Author against divers Hereticks.] Lib. 1. cap. 2. He says, that he wrote against Menander. In the 4th Chapter against Basi∣lides and Isidorus; in the 7th, against the Helcesaites; Eusebius says, concerning these last, That it was in his Homilies. In the 19th Chapter, against Appelles; in the 3d Book, Chap. 2. against the Nazareans. He attributes to him in the 5th Chapter, the little La∣byrinth against Theodotus, which is by another Author.
• aa 1.389

  But he has taken therein so much Liberty.] He de∣clares it himself in his Preface, where he says, that he has retrenched and added several things concern∣ing the Trinity. The Passages out of these Books, related in the Apology, are quite different from this Version, as well as those which are in the Ph••∣l••••••lia.
• bb 1.390

  If it was not more probable that it was composed by another Author.] This Dialogue is a Dispute against the Marcionites, and the Valentinians, wherein he in∣troduces Origen, defending the Doctrines of the Church; M••gethius, and Marcus taking the Part of the Marcionites; Droferius, Valens, and Maximus, that of the Valentinians, and Eutropius as a Judge between them. We have three different Versions of it, that of Peri∣nius, that of Picus, printed in 1655, and that of Humfredus in 1557, which is much the exactest. But it has been lately published in Greek by a Learned English-man, who pretends that it is Origen's. Hi••e∣tius after Halloixius and Rivet believes that it is not Origen's, and this Opinion seems the most probable. 'Tis indeed cited in the Philocalia, as a Work of Origen's: But it is possible that S. Gregory and S. Basil might have been deceived because it bears his Name; or that believing that this Book containing nothing but Origen's Opinions, and go∣ing under his Name, they might quote it in a Work wherein they made a Collection of his Opinions. Be∣sides it appears by the Title, that they had taken this Passage from Eusebius, who relates it word for word as it is in the Philocalia, in his 7th Book de Praepara∣ti••••e Evangelicâ, as taken from the Treatise of one M••ximus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, concerning Matter; and at the end they add the following Remark: This is extracted from Eusebius's Book, De Praeparatio∣ne Evangelicâ; the Author thereof is Maximus, a fa∣mous Writer among the Christians, as Eusebius observes; but it is likewise found almost in the same T••rms in Ori∣gen's Dialogue against the Marcionites and other Here∣••ick••, in which Megethius is the Disputant▪ and Eutro∣pius the Judge. This Observation makes it appear, that the Authors of the Philocali•• believed that this Passage did really belong to Maximus, relying upon Eusebius's Authority; but having also found it in a Dialogue which bears Origen's Name, they believed that they might cite it as his, without examining whether he was the Author of it; for 'tis a thing very unlikely to affirm, that Origen had taken this Passage from Maximus, to insert it into his Dialogue, since it is already in Eusebius in form of a Dialogue, though the Names be suppressed. So it seems that we may say that Maximus was the Author of this Di∣alogue, wherein he introduces Origen, disputing a∣gainst the Hereticks, and Eutropius as Judge. But there are considerable Difficulties raised against this Hypothesis. The first, That Maximus was more anci∣ent than Origen, as appears by Eusebius, who in the first Book of his History, Chap. 27, places him a∣mongst the Authors, who flourished under the Em∣perours Commodus and Severus. The Second is, That it is not likely the Treatise of Maximus should be this Dialogue, because it was Entitled concerning Mat∣ter, and he only proved therein, that Matter was a created Substance, whereas this Dialogue contains several other Points of Religion. We may answer to the first Reason, That Eusebius was not exact in setting down the Times of Authors, and especially of those about whose Lives he was not particular. The second Objection is more difficult; though we may say, that Eusebius having extracted out of this Book of Maximus, only what relates to the Original of Evil, and the Creation of Matter, he gave it the Title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & unde sit malum, though it treated of other Subjects; besides that, this Dia∣loguew as chiefly designed to confute the Error of the Marcionites, who admitted of several Principles for the explaining the Cause of Evil, and that of the Valentinians, who made Matter Eternal. Which a∣grees with what Eusebius says in his History, that Maximus composed several Volumes concerning that famous Question among the Hereticks; From whence comes Evil? And to prove that Matter is a created Substance, for though there are other things dis∣coursed of in this Dialogue, yet these are the two Principal Heads. Nevertheless, as the Passage which is related by Eusebius, and in the Philocalia, does not agree exactly with what is in this Dialogue, and that the Names of Origen, and the other Disputants are not there to be found, 'tis likely they were ad∣ded after the Death of Maximus and Origen. There are likewise in this Dialogue some Things which might give occasion to conjecture, that it is more Modern than any of these Authors. For it having been objected in the First Part, that the God of the Creation, who has the Hearts of Kings in his Power, must of necessity by a wicked God, since he suffered the Christians to be persecuted: He answers, These pitiful Shifts which you make, might have had some pro∣bability in former times, and there might have been some necessity then of returning an Answer to them, which might have been done very easily: But now we have a Religious Prince, what have you to say? Will you say that it is another God who rules his Heart, since this God∣ly Prince governs us much better then the others, and yet after a quite contrary manner; for he establishes what the others would have destroyed, he overthrows the Ima∣ges and Temples which the others honoured. Which shews that this Dialogue was composed in Constantine's time; for to say that this is to be understood of Philip, is to affirm a thing of which there is no like∣lihood; because supposing that he was a Christian, of which we are not assured, it was most certain that he did not make Profession thereof, and we can∣not say of any Emperor before Constantine, that he overthrew, Idolatry, and destroyed Temples and I∣dols. So the most probable Opinion is, That this Dialogue was composed in the beginning of the Fourth Age by one of Origen's Disciples, who has inserted Maximus's Dialogue into his Discourse. Be∣sides, there is another Reason not to attribute it to Origen, which is taken notice of by Hüetius; which is, that we find some Notions that are very Ortho∣dox, and quite different from Origen's Errors, con∣cerning the State of Innocence, Man's Body, the Soul, and the Resurrection.
• * 1.390.2

  [Whom our Author 〈◊〉〈◊〉... by▪ this En∣glish-man I know not. ••et••tenius, the Greek Professor at Basil, was the first that publish∣ed it at Basil, Gr. L••t. in 1674. 40.]
• cc 1.391

  Whether it was composed in Latin, or whether it was translated from the Greek.] Erasmus, Aubertin, and Cook are of Opinion that it was Latin, because the Phrase and Manner of Expression is Latin; but this might proceed from the Interpreter. That which makes it believed that the Author was rather a Greek, is the Prologue which is in the Interpre∣ters Name; which Erasmus rejects as Supposi∣titious.
• dd 1.392

  'Tis certain that it was not written by Origen.] He says some things contrary to what Origen af∣firms. For Example, in the Second Book, he says that Jesus Christ preached three years and a half; and Origen, in his Book De Principiis, Cap. 2. and Hom. 32. in Lucam, says that he preached but a Year and odd Months.
• ee 1.393

  But by some other Author, who lived since the time of Arius.] He calls the Church that believes the Trinity, a Sect and a Heresie. He rejects the Word Trinity and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He commends the Martyr Lucian, who died a long time after Origen, and whom the Arians extolled as their Patron: Upon which Arius calls Eusebius of Nicomedia, Collusianita: And this sufficiently shews how grosly they are mistaken, who have attributed these Commentaries to S. Hilary.
• ff 1.394

  The other Commentary upon the whole Book of Job, is also by an Arian.] He condemns the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and calls the Catholicks Homousiasts; He commends Lucian the Martyr; and it is different from the First, because he makes Moses to be the Author of the Book of Job, and the First only makes him to be the Interpreter. Whereas Origen, in his Sixth Book a∣gainst Celsus, says, that Moses wrote nothing but, the Pentateuch. It is of a different Style from the Trea∣tises of Origen, and he confutes those, who believe the Stars to be animated, which is Origen's Opi∣nion.
• gg 1.395

  A Commentary upon S. Mark, ascribed likewise to Origen, which is none of his.] It is of a quite diffe∣rent Style, He says he will collect the Opinions of the Ancients. In some Manuscripts it is attributed to S. Cyril; in others to Victor of Antioch: It has been Translated, and Published under this Name by Pel∣tanus. He cites Origen, Eusebius, S. Chrysostom, A∣pollinarius, and Theodoret; and he mentions the Ni∣vatians.
• hh 1.396

  The Ten Homilies are all of other Authors than O∣rigen.] They have been collected in several Places, and put into order by Merlinus. They are all writ∣ten in a different Style from Origen's; and compos∣ed by a Latin Author: They have all Designs that are quite differing from those of Origen's Homilies; They are full of Quibbles upon Words, and of af∣fected Rhetorical Figures, which is not to be found in Origen's Works. In the First, he says, That Je∣sus Christ was born of the Virgin, without opening of her Womb; The contrary to which is taught by Origen, in his 54th Homily upon St. Luke. The Se∣cond discourses of the Arians and the Manichees; and therein the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is defended; therein like∣wise are cited the Books attributed to St. Dionysius. The 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th Books are all filled with vain Repetitions, Antitheses, Quibbles upon Words, Synonima's and Allusions, which prove that it is a Latin Author, they are of the same Style of the First. The 9th is composed of Three Parts (as Huetius has observed.) The First is Part of Origen's ••4th Discourse upon St. Matthew. The Se∣cond is taken from St. Hierom's 8th Book upon Isaiah; and the Last from the 17th Chapter of St. Gregory's Ninth Book of Morals.
• ii 1.397

  But the Bibliotheca Patrum, &c.] Michael Chi∣fleri tells us in the Preface to his Commentary upon Jeremiah, Printed in the Year 1623, that he found four and twenty of them, and that the Last was the Treatise of St. Clement, What Rich Man can be saved? He sets down Eight.
• kk 1.398

  Bears Origen's Name in a Manuscript of the King's Library.] By Vincentius Bellovacensis, and some others. Pamelius is of this Opinion. In other Ma∣nuscrps it is attributed to St. Hierom and St. Augustin. Some have believed that it was Translated from Greek, but it is, as we shall shew hereafter, written by a Latin.
• ll 1.399

  Lastly, They say that th••re are in Libraries other Treatises under this Author's Name.] There is a Book concerning the Astrolabe, which was said to be in the Vatican Library; the Breviary or Abridgment of Origen, a Book concerning Preaching or Catechiz∣ing, &c. And besides this, there are several of Ori∣gen's Fragments in the Catenae Graecorum Patrum: But it would be an endless Labour to collect them all. Hiietius, who neglected this Toil, thinking it to be too Great, by reason of the Multitude of the Ca∣tenae, and to be to no purpose, by reason of their little Authority; tells us that Father Combefis, a Man of indefatigable Pains, having undertaken it, he has referred us to the Collection which he has made of them. 'Tis probable he did not think them worth publishing.
• * 1.400

  Lib. 4. contra Celsum, & 6. Lib. 3. contra Celsum▪ T. 14. in Joan. & de Princip. c. 1. q. 20. in Exod. Lib. 4. contra Celsum.
• * 1.401

  Tom. 1. Comment. in Joan. p. 17. 19 p. 30. ibid. & Homil. 6. in jerem. p. 28. Tom. 2. 47, 48. ibid. lib. 2. cont. Cel∣sum. Lib. 6. cont. Celsum, & lib. 8.
• * 1.402

  Lib. de Decretis Concilii Nicaeni. Basil. de Sp. Sancto c. 29. lib. 8. cont. Ceisum, & Tom. 2. in Joannem p. 56. & p. 17, & 23. Tom. 2. in Je∣an. p. 49, 56, & 70. Item Tom. 13. p. 218. Item Tom. 32. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, & lib. 5.
• * 1.403

  Epist. ad Avitum.
• * 1.404

  Tom. 2. in Joan. p. 56. Tom. 6. p. 130. Lib. 5. contra Celsum. Tom. 15. in Mat.
• * 1.405

  Tom. 20. in Joh. p. 292.
• a 1.406

  Lib. 1, cont. Celsum, lib. 2. lib. 3. & lib. 4 Com. in Joan. & in Mat. passim lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Apol. Pamphili. Vide Tom. 1. in Joan. p. 3. Tom. 20. p. 307. lib. 6. Lib. 1. cont. Celsum. Lib. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theophil. Ep. 2. Paschal. Hier. Ep. ad Ruffinum. lib. 1. cap. 5. & Ep. 61. ad Avitum. c. 4. Sulpit. Severus Dial. 1. c. 3. Bern. Serm. 44. Albert. in Ep. 8 Dion. Hom. 40. in Lucam. Hom. 1. in Levit. L••b. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. T. 1. in Joh. p. 32, 38. T. 2. p 69. t. 1. in Mat. p. 313. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 15. in Mat. 313, L. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c. 3. Lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. Justin. Ep. ad Mennam. Hier. Ep. ad Avitum. Vide, Hom. 1. in Levit. in Luc. c. 2. Hom. 12. in Lev. & 8. Hom. 20. in Luc. lib. 2. de Princip. c. 3. Tom. 1. Com. in Johan. Tom. 2. p. 320.
• b 1.407

  This is the Principle of the Pla∣tonists. Theophilus, Justinian, S. Epi∣phanius, Methodius, and an anonymous Author in Photius, ascribed it to Ori∣gen. He plainly asserts it in his first Book of Principles, C. 6. Tom. 15. & 13. in Matt.
• c 1.408

  Hom. 23. in J. S. lib. 2. Per. c. 11. Tom. 13. in Mat. & p. 310, 311. Tom. 14. p. seq. lib. 1. in Ep. ad. Rom. Hom. 23. in Jos. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, Hom. 4. in Num. Hom. 2. in Jos. lib. 1. Per. cap. 10. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, Hom. 4. in Psal. 36. Hom. 20. Hom. 35. in Lu••. lib. 5. cont. Celsum, lib. 8. Hom. in Ezek. Hom. 23. in Lucam.
• d 1.409

  Lib. 2. Per. cap. 2.
• e 1.410

  Hom. 1. in Genes in Exhort at. ad Mart. lib. 6. contra Celsum. In Luc. cap. 41.
• f 1.411

  Lib. 2. Per. c. 3. & lib. 3. cap. 1. & 3. Lib. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, c. 1, & 2. & in Ep. ad Rom. passim. Tom. 11. in Matt. Item 16, & 13. in Joan. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, c. 7. lib. 3. c. 1. Rhi••oc••l. cap. 20. in Ep. ad Rom. lib. 7, & 9. & lib. 2. de Princip. cap. 9. Hom. 10. in Levit. 1. in Ezek. lib. 1. Per. c. 5. Hom. 35. in Luc. c. 1. Lib. 3. Per. Tract. 33. in Mat. Lib. 4. & 9. in Ep. ad Rom. Supra, & lib. in Ep. ad Rom. lib. 3. P••r. c. 2. lib. 1. P••r. c. 8. lib. 3. cap. 2. in Psal. 4. Hom. in Psal. 36. Hom. in Matt. p. 210. Tract. 15. in Matt.
• g 1.412

  Lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. Tom. 13. in Matt. p. 328. T. 15. p. 385. Tract. 35. in Matt. ibid. & Lib. 1. in Ep. ad Rom.
• h 1.413

  Lib. 1. in Ep. ad Rom. & Lib. 7. ejusdem operis.
• i 1.414

  Tom. 1. in Joan. p. 17. Lib. 1. Per•…•…o. 7. & lib. 2. Tom. 13. in Mat. Lib. 5. con. C••lsum & in Ep. ad Rom. Cap. 8. & Lib. 8. Justin. Ep. ad Me•…•….
• k 1.415

  Lib. 5. Con. Cels. lib. 2. Per. c. 3. Lib. 2. c. 10. See Methodius in Epi∣phanius, and St. Jerom in his Epistle John of Jerusalem. Tom. 17. in Matt. pag. 494, & 495. lib. 2. Per. c. 3. & 10. & Lib. 3. Cap. 6.
• l 1.416

  Tract. 30, & 34. in Matt. lib. 2. in Ep. ad Rom. & lib. 9. Hom. 6. in Exod. Hom. 3. in Psal. 36. Hom. 14 in Luc. lib. 5. cont. Cels. & lib. 8. ad Rom.
• n 1.417

  Lib. 4. Per, cap. 2. & lib. 1. cap. 6. Philocal. cap. 1.
• n 1.418

  Lib. 2. de Prin, & lib. 5. con. Cels. Tract. 34. in Joan. Hom. 26. in Num. & 27, 28. & Passim. Tract. 30. in Matt. Lib. 1. de Prin. c. 6. lib. 2. c. 3. & 12. lib. 3. cap. 6. l••b. 3. de Prin. c. 3. & lib. 2. Hom. 7. in Levit. Hom. 6. in Num. & in Reg. in Ezech. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. 1. Per. c. 6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 15. & Tract. 33. in Matt. Hom. 8. in L••∣vit. 14. in Luc.
• o 1.419

  Lib. 2. cap. 1. & 8. & Tom. 19. in Joan. Justin. Ep. ad Mennam. and two Passages from Lib. 1. & 4. Hieront. Ep. 59. ad A••itu••.
• p 1.420

  Lib. 1. Per. c. 2. Method. apud P••••∣tiam. c. 3. on Genes•• c. 1. This was objected against him by Methodius in Epipha∣nius, by Photius, by Eustathius, by John of Jerusalem, by St. Jerome; and it may be found in Lib. 4. de Prin. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2.
• q 1.421

  Tom. 12. in Matthaeum.
• r 1.422

  Tom. 11. in Matt.
• s 1.423

  Hom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Num. & Tract. 35. in Matt. Hom. 7. in Levit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Joan.
• t 1.424

  Hom. 2. & 6. in Gen. Hom. 3. & 5. in Levit. Hom. 2, & 3. in Exod. item 7, & 11. in Levit. lib. 1. Per. c. 2. Hom. 9, & 2. in J••s.
• u 1.425

  H'm. 10 13. & 9 in Num. Hom. 6 in L••vit. Hom. 4. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hom. 6 in Jerem. Hom. 8. ibid. Hom 10. in Levit. Hom. 21. in Jos. Hom. 9, & 11. in Jerem. Tract. 35. in Matt. H••m. 2. in. Jud. & Hom. 2. in Ps. 37. Hom. 15. in Levit. Hom. 10. in Ezech. Tract. 6. in Matt. Hom. 14. in Le∣v•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in cap. 4. Matt. Hom 2. in Levit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hom. 14. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• x 1.426

  Tract. 11. in Matt. Tract. 32. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. s. lib. 8. Hom. 17. in Levit.
• y 1.427

  Hom. 5. in Exod. & 23. Hom. 3. in Gen. & ibidem. Hom. 5. Hom. 2. in J••r••m. Hom. 8. Hom. 2. Hom. 3. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Exod. Hom. 14. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Item Hom. 15. Tract. 6. in Matt. Hom. 2. in Levit.
• z 1.428

  Hom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.429

  Hom. 10. in Levit.
• b 1.430

  In. Genes. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.431

  Hom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in N•…•…. & 25. in J••s. in Frag. in Ep. ad H••b. in Apol. Pamphili. lib. 3. con. Cels H••m. in. E••cod. 8. lib. 2. Per. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Matt. & Hom. 18. in Num.
• d 1.432

  He always cites it under S. Paul's Name. Hom. 8. in Exod. 7. in Levit. in Jerem. Hom. 1. lib. 1. Per. Lib. 2. in Matt. c. 13. ap. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 25. lib. 2. Per. c. 5. & lib. 2. Per. in Matt. c. 13. Hom. in Jesum. 3. & 10. in cap. ••8. Matt. Hom. in Jer. 14. in Ez. in Luc. Hom. 8. in Exod. Hom. 10. in Jos. lib. 1. Per. lib. 2. lib. 3. in Luc. Hom. 35. Luc. 3. per.
• * 1.433

  Ambrose and Tryphon.
• * 1.434

  Beryllus.
• a 1.435

  Saint Cyprian.] His own Name was Thascius, as appears by the Letter to Pipin, and the Acts of his Passion.
• b 1.436

  Before he turned Christian.] This is all we are a∣ble to say of what concerned him before his Conver∣sion, because Pontius the Deacon in his Life, and St. Jerome in his Catalogue tells us no more of him. What Baronius has cited, taken out of the Oration of St. Gregory Nazianzen, concerning one St. Cypri∣an a Martyr, does not belong to our Bishop of Car∣th••ge: 'Tis commonly believed that St. Gregory speaks of another St. Cyprian, but 'tis a great deal more probable, that the Greeks, who knew but lit∣tle of what passed in the West, feigned these Cir∣cumstances in the Life of St. Cyprian Bishop of Car∣thage▪ as it was a familiar thing with them to adorn and set off the Lives of Saints, with several uncer∣tain and fabulous Narrations.
• c 1.437

  He was Converted.] His Conversion might hap∣pen towards the Year 246. Having been Baptized at Easter or at Whitsontide, he writ his Letter to Do∣natus in Autumn. He tells us in his 59th Letter to Cornelius, which was written in the Year 252, that it was four years since he had been made a Bishop. Thus he was Bishop 10 years. He calls Donatus his Predecessor.
• * 1.438

  St, Cyprian
• d 1.439

  The Year 248.] The Persecution under Decius began at the end of the Year 249, or else at the be∣ginning of the Year 250.
• f 1.440

  Between that of Stephen, who seems to have main∣tained] What induces us to believe that Stephen was of this Opinion, is in the first place, because he make no distinction at all, but says plainly, à qua∣cun{que} Heresi. Secondly, Because St. Cyprian and Fir∣milian takes Stephen's Words in this sense; now who can imagine that they would have engaged them∣selves in a Dispute, without so much as knowing the Opinion of their Adversary. Thirdly, There were scarce any Hereticks before Stephen, who Baptized in the Name of the Trinity, so that it had been only a Chimerical Question about a thing which had ne∣ver been practised, to dispute whether it were neces∣sary to Re-baptize those who had been Baptized in the Name of the Trinity by Hereticks, since there were almost no Hereticks that used to Baptize after that manner. Fourthly, The ancient Author of a small Book written against the Opinion of St. Cy∣prian, makes mo mention of this Distinction of He∣reticks, but generally approves all Baptism whate∣ver given in the Name of Jesus Christ. Fifthly, St. Au∣gustin never cites Stephen's Decree for his Opinion; on the other hand, he opposes the Opinion of Ste∣phen and St. Cyprian. and in his sixth Book de unico Bapt. c. 14. he tells us Stephen maintained that no body was to be Re-baptized, in nullo iterandum Bap∣tisma. There are several other Reasons which I pass over in silence.
• g 1.441

  St. Cyprian never altered his Opinion.] There is not the least probability that St. Cyprian altered his Opinion. In the time of the Council of Arles, the Africans still continued this Practice, and in Opta∣tus's time they distinguished between Hereticks and Schismaticks, receiving the latter without Baptism, but Re-baptizing the former.
• h 1.442

  Divided upon this Question.] Denis of Alexandria in Eusebius testifies that the Eastern Churches were di∣vided upon this Question. St. Athanasius rejects the Baptism of Hereticks. St. Basil in two Canons of his Letter to Amphilochius examines the different Cu∣stoms of several Churches about this Question, and inclines to the Party of those who reject the Baptism of Hereticks as invalid.
• i 1.443

  First decided it in the West.] The Council of Ar∣les, 1. c. 8. De Afris qui propriâ lege utuntur ut Re-baptizent.
• k 1.444

  Calls the full Council.] This Question has been discussed with mighty Heat in our time, though it be but of small importance. It is certain that the Council of Arles has decided it agreeably to the Opi∣nion of St. Austin, and that the Africans gave the Name of a full Council to Councils consisting of more than one Province, as was that of Arles. How∣ever it is, the Council of Nice has not decided this Question, but only ordained that the Paulianists should be Re-baptized. Now it is not certain whe∣ther they Baptized in the Name of the Trinity or no: And St. Athanasius himself seems to affirm the contrary; besides that, though they had not Bap∣tized in the Name of the Trinity, yet we cannot say that this Council has determined the Question.
• l 1.445

  The Eastern Churches.] Those of the East did not make use of St. Austin's Distinction either in the Council of Constantinople, or in the Council that was held in the Emperour's Palace; but they distinguish∣ed between three sorts of Hereticks. Those that were to be Re-baptized as the Paulianists, and the ancient Hereticks, together with the Eunomians and Sabellians, who did not observe three Immersions. Secondly, Those that were to be anointed, such as were the Arians, the Macedonians, the Novatians, the Quarto decimani, and the Apollinarians: And lastly, those who had nothing more to do than barely to make an Abjuration, as the Eutychians, the Nestori∣ans, the Severians, the Acephali, and the Monothelites.
• m 1.446

  The first Letter.] 'Tis rather a Treatise than a Letter, but all St. Cyprian's Works were called Let∣ters, as it appears by Ruffinus in his Apology. St. Pa∣cian calls the Book de Lapsis, a Letter, Ep. 3. ad Sem∣pronianum. St. Austin likewise not only calls the Treatise to Donatus but the Book of Unity, the Trea∣tise of Zeal and Envy by this Name; and in some o∣ther places he gives the Title of the Book to the Let∣ters. It is an easie matter however to distinguish the Letters from the Treatises; We leave the Trea∣tise to Donatus amongst the Letters, though is is a Treatise.
• n 1.447

  Into five Classes.] In the English Edition before the other Letters of St. Cyprian, we find four that are said to have been written before his Retirement, but they bring no Proofs or Conjectures strong enough to support this Opinion, and therefore we had bet∣ter own that we cannot tell when they were written.
• o 1.448

  Detained against his Will.] The Five and thirti∣eth Letter is placed after this, in the Edition lately put out in England, but it seems to me to have been written towards the end of the Persecution, because he there speaks of his Return. We are to pass the same Judgment upon the Sixth, and Seventh, and the fifth, which were all written at the same time.
• * 1.449

  p Celerinus the Confessor.] These Letters are pla∣ced in this Year, because it is not unlikely that they were written some time after the Persecution was begun. This of Celerinus was written after Easter.
• q 1.450

  The Cabals of Felicissimus.] These Letters were carried by Metius the Subdeacon as well as the one and fortieth.
• r 1.451

  About April in the same Year.] The Author of the Annals of St. Cyprian, in the English Edition, believes that this Synod was not held till the end of the Year 253, after the Persecution of Gallus and Volusian was ended: but if it was assembled at that time, the Bishops ought not to have blamed Therapi∣us for giving the Peace to Victor, since they them∣selves had freely granted it to all People before the Persecution of Gallus; and indeed so far was he from doing any thing against the last Decree, that he rather seems to have put it into Execution; for it is not true that St. Cyprian makes any mention in this Letter of the two Decrees of the preceeding Synods; he only speaks of the first, whereby it was ordained that the Peace should not be given to those that had fallen, unless they fell into any dangerous Disease, or in case of Extremity. St. Cyprian's Words are these, Quae res satis nos movit recessum esse à Decreti no∣stri auctoritate, ut ante legitimum & plenum tempus sa∣tisfactionis, & sine petitu & conscientiâ plebis nullà infirmitate urgente, ac necessitate cogente pax ei concederetur. He speaks only of one Decree, Decreti nostri, and not Decretorum, and he does not distin∣guish between two, for infirmitate urgente and necessi∣tate cogente signifie the same thing. And though Te∣rapius the Bishop had reconciled Victor before the Persecution, and his Conduct ought for that reason to be blamed, yet it could never be doubted after the Persecution was over, whether this Reconciliation were valid; besides there is no great probability that Fidus should ever be so ill advised as to accuse Therapius for giving Absolution to Victor long after, and at a Juncture too, when all Bishops gave it to those that were fallen. 'Tis infinitely more proba∣ble that this Council was held after the first Council of Carthage, which prohibited the giving Absolution to those that had fallen, unless in case of extream Sickness, and the second which granted the Peace to all that had fallen. 'Twas likewise in this Inter∣val, that the 52 Letter was written, but after this Council, which in all probability was held a∣bout Easter, in the Year 252. For if Absolution had been granted to all the lapsed, the Question of the Bishops concerning those Persons who yielded only through the Violence of their Torments, and St. Cyprian's Answer had been impertinent; and what is more, it was written three years after the Persecution of Decius. Therefore this could not happen but at the beginning of the year 253, and consequently the Synod of Carthage which granted the Peace, was held in the same year, and not in 252, as Bishop Pearson says. Thus if we would be exact in our Chronology, we ought to place the first Synod of Carthage about Easter, in the year 251, the second at Easter 252, which is that of the Sixty six Bishops, and the third at Easter in the year 253.
• s 1.452

  His Election and glorious Confession.] The English Annalist says, that this Letter was written before the Death of Gall••s and Volufian in 252, because St. Cyprian there speaks of the Persecution as not be∣ing quite over, or at least as being still to be feared▪ but this does not prove that Lucius returned before their Death, but only that though these Emperors were dead, there was reason still to apprehend a Per∣secution, and he actually suffered Martyrdom soon after, at the beginning of the Empire of Galienus, or under Emilian.
• t 1.453

  Who advised Stephen in his 66th Letter.] B••••o∣nius and some others have made use of this Letter to advance the Authority of Rome, but with small suc∣cess; for first of all St. Cyprian only advises Stephen to do what he himself might do, and what he had really done. Secondly, The Gallican Bishops writ to St. Cyprian as well as to Stephen. Thirdly, They addressed themselves to them, because Marcianus had alledged in his own Defence, that these Bishops had not excommunicated him. Fourthly, St. Cyprian does not write to him to Cite or Depose Marcianus, but only to declare him separated from the Commu∣nion, and to advise the People of Arles to Elect ano∣ther Bishop, because he was notoriously Excommu∣nicated and Deposed, for joyning himself to Novati∣an, who was then out of the Church. Fifthly, He does by no means ground the Necessity of Stephen's writing into France upon his Authority, but only upon a Motive of Charity, whereby Bishops were obliged to asist one another, and upon the Unity of the Episcopacy. Monsieur Launoy has endeavoured to bring the Truth of this Letter into question, and has proposed some Conjectures to shew that it is spu∣rious, but they are weak and ill grounded, and scarce any body has been induced to embrace his Opinion, because this Letter is really St. Cyprian's Style, which has a peculiar Character, as St. Austin well observes, by which it may be easily known. The first Diffi∣culty relates to the time of this Letter, but this is easily answered, by saying that it was written at the end of the Year 255, and that the Quarrel between Stephen and St. Cyprian began not till the Year 256. The second is taken from the Silence of the Ancients, but we ought not to be surprized that this particu∣lar Fact was not taken notice of, since that of Basili∣des, and Martialis, which are not questioned by Mon∣sieur Launoy, were also as much forgotten▪ Add to this, that St. Austin. Lib. 6. de Bapt. contra Donatist. Ch. 15. makes ment on of a Letter of St. Cyprian to Pope Stephen, which takes no notice of the Question about Baptism, and cannot be any other than this. The Third Objection of Monsieur Launoy is, that it is not to be found in several Manuscripts, as in that of the Vatican, and above twenty more, according to the English Edition; but then it is to be found in three ancient ones, as Rigaltius has observed, and there are several Letters of St. Cyprian that are want∣ing in some Manuscripts. The Principal and Last is taken from the History of Trophimus, who came not to Arles, of which Place he was Bishop (if we may believe the ancient Author of the Life of St. Sa∣turninus, quoted by Gregory of Tours) till the time of Decius, which is four or five Years before this Let∣ter of St. Cyprian was written, though it appears by this Letter that Marcianus was Bishop of Arles, and not Trophimus, and the Christian Religion had been a long time established in that City. This we confess to be the greatest Difficulty, but we may answer it by admitting the Epocha of Sulpitius Severus, who tells us, that Trophimus came some years before Decius, and that it is not the Author of the Life of Saturni∣nus, but Gregory of Tours, who upon occasion of what this Author says, that Saturninus was Bishop of Tholouse in the time of Decius, adds seven other Bi∣shops of France, amongst whom is Trophimus, and it is possible that he might reckon some who came some time before. The fifth Epistle of Zosimus, which Qu••snellus has defended against the Conjectures of Monsieur Launoy, confirms our Opinion, for there it is said: Trophimus being sent to Arles by the Holy See, was as it were the Spring of all those Rivers that run through the whole Body of France. Which Passage shews, that it is probable that he came some years before the Empire of Decius, though it were a long time after the times of the Apostles, and several years after the Martyrdom of St. Irenaeus.
• u 1.454

  In the same Year another Synod of Bishops was held.] This Synod must of necessity have been assembled in the Year 255, as what followed sufficiently shews. It is different from that which was held upon the account of Basilides and Martialis, at least the Names that are to be seen at the Head of two Synodical Let∣ters, are different. Hence it follows, that there must have been more than one held that very year, and we are not to wonder at it, because it was the custom of the Africans to hold two every Year, one in the Spring, and the other in Autumn. This might be assembled in the Month of September, in the Year 255, the next in the Spring 256. and the last in the Month of September in the same Year.
• x 1.455

  It was written in the Autumn, in the Year 256.] We are told in this Letter, that it was written about Twenty two years after the Empire of Alexander, who died in the year 235, and that it was composed in haste, because Rogatianus was obliged to return by reason of the approaching Winter. It could not be written in 257, because St. Cyprian was banished at the end of that Year.
• y 1.456

  In the 75th Letter.] The English Annalist thinks that this is the first Letter which was written con∣cerning the Question of Baptism, because it does not plainly and openly make mention of the Synods that were held in Africk upon that Occasion. It appears more probable to me, that it was written afterwards because it supposes the general Question to be decid∣ed, and the Author clearly speaks of some of his Colleagues that received the Baptism of Hereticks. He says he knew no reason why Christians should take the Part, if he might so say, of Antichrists, which induces me to believe, that it was written after his Q••rrel with Stephen; besides, it is more natural to imagine, that this Question, which regards the Ex∣c••ption of the general Rule, was made after the De∣cision. For Magnus proposes it to him as a new diffi∣culty. You demand of me, says he, whether those that come from Novatian's Party, are to be baptized as well as other Hereticks.
• z 1.457

  St. Xystus was Elected in his Place.] This Persecu∣tion lasted forty two Months, according to St. Denis of Alexandria and Valerian was taken by the Persians in 261 so it began about July 257.
• yz 1.458

  St. Cyprian.] The principal Reason is, because, he does not speak of any Persecution in his Letters, though this reason is not absolutely convincing.
• aa 1.459

  Pretends to have been written in the Year 253.] Because it appears that St. Cyprian was then a Bishop. Cum mediocritatem nostram s••••pe•• ho••il•• & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 moderatime te••eamus: Besides that, there he speaks of the Persecution, and says, that this was the cause why some of the Faithful abstained from offering Wine. [This rather, as I intimated above, was the true Reason of this Innovation.]
• bb 1.460

  A small Treatise intituled of the vanity of Idols.] This Book is cited by St. Jerome. Epist. 84. ad Mag∣mon. Cyprianus, quod Idola Dii non sunt, quâ brevitate, quâ historiarum omnium scientiâ, quò verborum & sensuum splendore perstrin••it. It is probable that it was written in the year 247.
• cc 1.461

  The first Books of the Testimonies to Quirinus.] These Books are not only cited by Bede, and by Gen∣nadius, but also by St. Jerome, advers. Pelag. and by St. Austin, lib. contra duas Epist. Pelag. c. 8. & 10. who testifies that Pelagius the Heretick had made a Collection of several Testimonies out of the Scrip∣ture, to imitate, or rather to compleat the work of St. Cyprian. St. Jerome cites the third Book. He and St. Austin have drawn some passages out of it, so that though they are not to be found in several Manuscripts, yet we are not in the least to doubt of them. Quirinus, to whom this Work is addressed, was in all probability a Neophyte, when it was writ∣ten to him; for St. Cyprian calls him his Son, and tells him in his Preface, that he sent him these Testi∣monies to give him the first tinctures of the Faith, and that he presented him with a little Water drawn out of the Divine Fountains, which he might make use of till he could go to drink of them himself at the Spring-Head.
• dd 1.462

  Has been composed since these.] In the Preface of the first Book he only speaks of two Books, and the third is not to be found in some ancient Editions: but it is cited, as we have observed, by St. Jerome and St. Austin, Retract. lib. 2. c. 1. advers. Pelag. c. 9. de Proedestin. Sanct. c. 3. and 'tis properly speak∣ing, a work by it self: For the two first were writ∣ten to instruct Quirinus in the first grounds of the Christian Faith, and the design of this is to teach him the precepts of Morality. Some few Texts of Scripture may have been since added to it, which follow the Vulgar Latin. This Treatise might per∣haps be written in the year 249.
• ee 1.463

  After he was Ordained Bishop.] He was then a Bishop, for he speaks to them, as having Authority over them, and calls himself their Father. Pontius insinuates, That it was not composed till after his Retirement; for, to prove that St. Cyprian's Retire∣ment was of great advantage to the Church, because of the Books he wrote, during his Solitude, he pla∣ces the Book about the Conduct of Virgins in this num∣ber. Who is it, says he, who has taught the Virgins to preserve Discipline, to wear modest Apparel, agreeable to their Condition? But Pontius in this place enumerates the works of St. Cyprian, like a Rhetorician, since the first he mentions is the Epistle to Donatus, which was certainly written before his Confinement, and in all appearance the Luxury of Women, the use of fre∣quenting Baths, and the other Irregularities he re∣prehends in that Treatise, better agree with a time wherein the Church had long enjoy'd Peace. Be it as it will, Pontius always places the Book of the Conduct of Virgins first.
• ff 1.464

  In the Treatise of the Church.] Pontius menti∣ons this Treatise. It is cited by St. Austin in his se∣cond Book, Contra Crescon. and by Facundus, lib. 1. cap. 16. under the name of the Treatise of Unity; and in some ancient Editions, it is Entituled, A Treatise of the Simplicity of Pastors.
• gg 1.465

  Upon the occasion of the Infection.] It had its rise in Arabia, then spread it self in Aegypt and Africa, from whence it passed into all the West. It was an Epidemical Distemper, a great deal worse than a common Pestilence. It began under the Empire of Gallus and Volusian, and lasted several Years; it raged with twice the violence, under the Empire of Galie∣nus, as we have already observed. This Treatise was written in the Year 253, or 254.
• hh 1.466

  After the Death of Gallus and Volusian.] This Treatise was written during the Plague, to shew that the Christians were not the cause of it. He there speaks of the late Fall of Kings, which is to be understood of the Death of Gallus and Volusian, who were killed by their Soldiers.
• ii 1.467

  Judge.] It has been commonly believed, that he was Proconsul: But the Author of the English Edition has very well observed, that St. Cyprian does not speak to him as to a Proconsul; and that what he says of him, viz. that he often came to him to dispute with him, and that he drew several Persons over to his Party, is by no means suitable to the Character of a Sovereign Magistrate of Africk.
• kk 1.468

  The Treatise of the Works of Merey and Alms-giving.] This Treatise is cited by Pontius, by St. Je∣rome, Ep. ad Pamm. by St. Austin, contr. Jul. contr. Pe∣lagianos & alibi.
• ll 1.469

  He sent to Jubaianus a Bishop.] Ep. and Jub. Te∣neatur à nobis patienter, & firmiter Charitas animi, Collegii honor, vinculum fidei, & concordia sacerdotii; propter hoc etiam libellum de bono patientiae, quantum va∣luit nostra mediocritas, permittente Domino, & inspiran∣te conscripsimus, quem ad te pro multâ dilectione trans∣misimus. Pontius mentions it, St. Jerome cites it, advers. Lucif. and St. Austin in several places.
• mm 1.470

  The Book of Envy was writ some time after that of Patience.] It was written after the Book of Pa∣tience, because when he writ to Jubaianus, he sent him only the Treatise of Patience. It is cited by Pon∣tius, by St. Jerome, in Epist. ad Gal. c. 5. and by St. Austin in many places.
• nn 1.471

  Might be attributed to St. Cyprian.] I say it might be, for besides the difference of Style, which is obvious to every Eye, they are not attributed to St. Cyprian in the Manuscripts, but only in the Prin∣ted Books.
• oo 1.472

  The Treatise against Gamesters.] It was writ by some Bishop, but we are not to conclude, that it was by a Bishop of Rome, because he calls himself the Vicar of Jesus Christ, for anciently that name was given to all Bishops.
• pp 1.473

  Barbarous Words.] Such as Repulsorium, Constitu∣tionarios, Vulgaritatis, Flumirorum, Probrositatis, Par∣ticipiis, Adunari, Vanificat, Egestosam, Procurativa, Absentarii, Conjugaliter.
• qq 1.474

  In short, it is neither written in the Style of St. Je∣rom, nor Origen.] That which has given occasion to attribute it to Origen, is, because the Author seems not to condemn a Man's making himself an Eunuch; but Origen was at last of a contrary Opinion, and repented of his Action. There is only one Manu∣script in the King's Library, that attributes it to Origen; as some Modern Authors think, after Vin∣centius Bellovacensis: But it rather resembles the Style of Gaudentius Brixensis, were it not, that in no Ma∣nuscripts or Printed Editions it is ever attributed to him.
• rr 1.475

  A Calend•…•… of Easter.] It has been cited under St. Cyprian's Name, by Paulus Diaconus. The Scrip∣ture is cited there according to the Version made use of by St. Cyprian, but there are some words in it that have nothing of the Purity of St. Cyprian, and the turn of the Phrase is wholly different. To discover the Truth of this, we need only set down the very first Period. Multo quidem, non modico tem∣pore anxii sumus & aestuantes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in faecularibus, sed in sanctis & divinis scripturis quaerentes invenire, quidnam sit primum diei, non mensis, in q•••• mense praescriptum est Judaeis in Egypto XIV. Lunâ comedere Pascha. Cyprian would have never used such a turn as this is to express his Thoughts. This Author tell us, That Jesus Christ celebrated the Passover five times, and died the sixth, in the 16th year of Tiberius, after he had Preached for the space of an year only. This System is ancient.
• * 1.476

  This can only be un∣der stóod of the La∣tins.
• ss 1.477

  Some harsh Terms.] Such as exambire, remissa, sanctificati, magnanimitas, mortalitas, confundi, absti∣nere to excommunicate, Dominicum, &c. words which are not Latin. He has likewise some harsh turns; as for example, he uses the Pronouns, se sui, instead of iste, istic for hic, quando for cum, quamdiu for donec, i••o for potius. He has also some Allusions and An∣titheses proper to the Africans.
• * 1.478

  Pontius.
• * 1.479

  Cornelius.
• a 1.480

  Eusebius mentions three more.] St. Jerome reckons Four Letters, but he is mistaken, and Eusebius takes notice only of three.
• b 1.481

  And a very great multitude of People.] There were at that time several Churches at Rome, for they had but one Priest to one Church: And this is the Reason why Optatus, speaking of the Churches that were at Rome in the Time of Dioclesian, says, that there were above forty of them.
• * 1.482

  Novatian.
• a 1.483

  It was he who gave him that pernicious Ad∣vice.] St. Cyprian in his 41st Epistle tells us, That Novatus had ordained a Bishop of Rome, as one Fe∣licissimus a Priest had done one at Carthage; not that he made them so himself, for he was no Bishop, but because he had made him so by his Counsels and Faction.
• * 1.484

  St. Marti∣alis.
• b 1.485

  Represented by these Animals.] As for Exam∣ple, he says, that the Prohibition of eating Swines∣flesh is to intimate to us, that we are not to lead a Carnal Life: That when we are forbidden to eat Weasils, the meaning is, we are forbidden to Steal; that by Crows Pleasures are signified, &c.
• a 1.486

  Under the Emperor Decius.] St. Gregory of Tours is the Man that fixes this Epocha of the com∣ing of St. Denis, Martialis, and their Colleagues into France. There is no Author extant, who is either more ancient or more worthy to be believed than St. Gregory, that has given us any Account of their arrival there any sooner.
• b 1.487

  Peter of Limoges.] This Story is related by a Monk called Gausius, in a Chronicle which is to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 288, 289. first printed in the year 1521, with Abdias, and af∣terwards in 1571, and 1614.
• c 1.488

  Frequently Printed.] They were first printed by Badius in the Year 1521, afterwards by B••rdes in the Year 1573, with the Notes of Elmenhorstius at Helmstad in 1614, at Basil in 1655, at Colen in 1560.
• * 1.489

  Sixtus.
• a 1.490

  Saint Jerome often reproaches him with this Imposture.] Ep. ad Ctesiphont. contra Pelag. in Cap. 22. Jerom. in Cap. 18. Ezechielis.
• b 1.491

  He retracts this Error.] Aug. lib. 2. retract. c. 42.
• c 1.492

  It is still extant.] In the Bibliotheca Patrum, but I cannot tell whether it was ever Printed by it self.
• * 1.493

  St. Gregory Thouma∣turgus.
• a 1.494

  The Arians and Nestorians.] For Example, in the first of these Homilies, it is said, that JE∣SUS CHRIST is born of the Virgin, that he is God and Man without Confusion, and without Change, perfect in the Divinity, and the Huma∣nity, like his Father in all, and consubstantial to us. In the second, there are extraordinary Praises of the Virgin, whom he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was not begun to be commonly practised till after the Synod of Ephesus. The Trinity is there called Consubstantial.
• a 1.495

  Dyonysius.] He is Surnamed the Great, by the Ancients. Euseb. St. Basil. Ep. ad Amphil. Maximus and Metaphrastes give him this Name. He had for∣merly been a Rhetorician, if we may believe Maxi∣mus, upon the fifth Chapter of the Hierarchia Coe∣listis. He was unquestionably descended of a good Family. See Eusebius, Lib. 7. Ch. 11. and the Notes of Valesius.
• b 1.496

  The third Year.] 'Tis so set down in Eusebius's History, Lib. 6. Chap. 35. and in his Chronicon 'tis the Fifth. But the Account of his History is the truest; for he supposes in his Chronicon, that Philip reigned Seven years, whereas he was Em∣perour but Five,
• * 1.497

  St. Diony∣sius.
• c 1.498

  This is that Persecution.] Eusebius refers it to the Persecution under Valerian; but the Cir∣cumstances agree with what happened to him un∣der the Persecution of Decius, and not what he suffered under the Persecution of Valerian, in which he was not carried away by Violence. One needs only consulting the two Fragments of his Letter to Germanus, where he gives an Account of vvhat befell him in these tvvo Persecutions, to be per∣svvaded in the matter.
• d 1.499

  Arose in that City.] 'Tis undoubtedly that Commotion, that was occasioned by Aemilianus, Governour of Alexandria, who caused that City, and likewise all Aegypt, to revolt from the Empe∣ror Galienus; as Pollio reports it. This Aemilianus was a different Person from him that took up Arms in Maesia, and marched against Gallus and Volustanus some years before. These two Aem••lians are distinguished in the Epitome of Aurelius Victor.
• e 1.500

  A Pestilence.] This Pestilence began in the time of Gallus and Volusianus, but it broke afresh under Gallus; as it is observed by Aurelius Victor and Pollio. Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of the latter Pestilence, and St. Cyprian of the former. Thus those Persons that imagined they spoke of the same Infection, are mistaken.
• * 1.501

  Theognostus
• * 1.502

  Theognostus
• * 1.503

  Archelaus.
• a 1.504

  Bishop of Passaw, a City of the Ancient Pannonia, and not of Poictiers in France.] Monsieur Launoy has written a Dissertation on purpose, to prove that he was not Bishop of Poictiers in France, but of a City in Pannonia called Petabion or Peta∣vion, now called Passaw. He quotes in this Dis∣sertation Five several places of St. Jerome, where mention is made of this Victorinus, twice in his Catalogue, once against Vigilantius, once against Helvidius, and once upon the Thirty sixth Chapter of Ezekiel; we find in the ancient Editions Petabi∣onensis, or Petavionensis, or Pictabiensis, or Pictabi∣onensis; and that he is also called by this Name in the Martyrologies of Usuardus and Ado, and in some other Ancient Writers, as well as in the first Edition of the Councils by Merlinus; and in the Edition of the Commentary upon the Apocalypse attributed to this Author. And he concludes from all these Authorities, and from several other Rea∣sons that he produceth, that this Voctorinus was nor Bishop of Poictiers, but of a certain City in Pan∣nonia called Petabion or Petavion, and now Passaw. He likewise observes in another small Dissertation, that there were five Authors of this Name. The First is the Defender of the Opinion of Praxeas, whereof Tertullian makes mention. The Second is our Author. The Third is a Rhetorician of Rome, of whom St. Austin speaks in the Eighth Book of his Confessions, Chap. 2. The Fourth is mention∣ed by Gennadius, who was of Marseilles. And the Last is an Orator, Surnamed Lampadius, menti∣oned by Photius, Cod. 101. See this Dissertation.
• b 1.505

  St. Jerome saith of him, that he did not un∣derstand Latin so well as Greek,] These Passages of St. Jerome are in this Catalogue: Non aeque Latine ut Graece noverat; inde opera ejus grandia sensibus, viliora sunt compositione verborum. And in his Commentary upon Isaiah, Lib. 1. Imperitus ser∣mone, non tamen scientia. Epist. ad Magnum: Victorino Martyri in suis libris licet desit eruditio, non deest tamen eruditionis voluntas.
• * 1.506

  Pierius.
• c 1.507

  And upon the Revelations.] He likewise wrote some other Works, and made a Commentary up∣on St. Matthew, as St. Jerome tells us, Praefat. in Matth. And in his Catalogue he says, That he composed several other Works.
• a 1.508

  Or Patarah.] St. Jerome tells us, he was Bishop of Olympus; Suidas adds, or of Patara. Though we are not therefore to think that there were two Methodius's. But it is probable that Pa∣tara, which was a City of Lycia, was likewise called Clympus; because it was built upon a Moun∣tain so called. Methodius likewise calls himself Eu∣bulus, and that is the Name he uses in his Banquet of Virgins. Eusebius does not speak of this Author, because he wrote against Origen. St. Jerome reports, That some Persons said, he suffered Martyrdom in the time of Decius and Valerian; which Account is followed by Suidas. But St. Jerome, and the Martyrologies after him, relate, that he suffered Martyrdom at Chalcis towards the End of the last Persecution.
• * 1.509

  Methodius.
• * 1.510

  Lucian.
• a 1.511

  Friend of Eusebius.] Eusebius wrote the Life of Pamphilus, and was from him Surnamed Pam∣philus.
• b 1.512

  The Books of Ancient Writers.] He la∣boured along with Eusebius to copy out exactly, and to correct the Vesion of the Septuagint, that was in the Tetrapla, and Hexapla of Origen, in∣tending to publish it by it self.
• c 1.513

  Five Books with Eusebius.] St. Jerome in his Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers, makes him the Author of the Apology for Origen; but he afterwards retracted what he had said in his Apo∣logy against Ruffinus. The truth is, The Five first Books were composed by Pamphilus and Eusebius together; and the last, which Ruffinus quoted, was Eusebius's alone. See Photius, Cod. 108.
• a 1.514

  Of the Septuagint.] The Version which he Corrected, was the common Version of the Septu∣agint. Upon this account, St. Jerome (Praefat. in Paralipomena) distinguishes between three different Editions of the Version of the Septuagint. The first, was that of Eusebius and Pamphilus, which he calls Palaestine, that was taken out of the Hexapla of Origen, who corrected it by an ancient Version, and added several things borrowed from the Ver∣sions of Theodotian, Aquila, and Symmachus. The Second was that of Alexandria, whereof Hesychius was Author, who likewise corrected the common Version of the Septuagint. The Last, that of Lu∣cian. This gave occasion to St. Jerome to say, That Totus Orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.
• b 1.515

  Of the Emperour Maximinus.] Eusebius, l. 9. c. 6. Hierom. in Catalog. And therefore Baronius is mistaken, when following the Acts of his Martyr∣dom, he says, That he suffered under Maximian; for 'tis a common mistake amongst the Greeks to take Maximian for Maximin.
• * 1.516

  Phileas.
• a 1.517

  Intirely St. Basil's.] The Sermons of S. Ba∣sil upon these Words, Attende tibi, & de Livore & Invidia, are entirely stoln; and the two other Homilies about Fasting and Temptation, are part of the two longest of St. Basil.
• b 1.518

  Of St. Hilary.] These Sermons upon the 126, 127, 128, 129, and 130 Psalms, belong to St. Hilary. Those upon the 49, 79, and 100 Psalms, might be his also; because we have lost the Com∣mentaries of this Father upon the Psalms.
• c 1.519

  Stoln out of several Autkors.] Some of the long ones are taken out of Greek Authors, and the short ones out of the Latin Writers, and Frag∣ments of Homilies.
• d 1.520

  A Bishop of this Name.] Eusebius indeed, Lib. 7. Chap. 11. of his History, gives a good Character of one Eusebius a Deacon, that lived with Dionysius of Alexandria, who was afterwards Bishop of Laodicea; but this Man ought rather to call himself Eusebius of Laodicea, than Eusebius of Alexandria.
• * 1.521

  Arnobius.
• a 1.522

  Under the Emperor Dioclesian.] He wrote his Books toward the end of the Third, or the Beginning of the Fourth Century; for in his First Book he ex∣presly tells us, That it was Three Hundred Years, more or less, since the Christians began to appear in the World.
• a 1.523

  Lucius Caelius.] This is his proper Name. There are some Manuscripts where he is called Cecilius. 'Tis supposed that he was Surnamed Firmianus from his Country, and Lanctantius from the sweetness of his Elocution; but this is not certain.
• b 1.524

  Converted in his Youth.] See the Seventh Book of his Institutions, Chapter the last, the Third Chapter of his Epitome, l. 2. c. 10. where he seems to reckon himself in the Number of those, who after they had acknowledged their Errour, were converted to the Truth. St. Jerome tells us, That he was the Disciple of Arnobius.
• * 1.525

  Lactantius.
• c 1.526

  About the Year of our Lord 320.] Lanctantius was at Nicomeida at the time of Dioclesian's Persecution in the Year 302. as he himself tells us, Lib. 5. of his Instit. Chap. 2. He tarried there till the Persecution was over; afterwards he went to France, where he wrote his Book of Institutions: for he speaks of the Persecutors in the Beginning of his First Book, as if he were then in another Country; he therefore wrote it in the time of the Persecution carried on by the Emperour Licinius, which began in the Year 320. So that the Name of Arians. that is to be found in some Manuscripts of his Books, might perhaps have been added since.
• d 1.527

  Six Thousand Years after its Creation.] So that he seems to have thought that there were no more than 200 Years to reckon from his own time to the Day of Judgment.
• e 1.528

  Picus Mirandula.] Picus lib. de Hist. Divinae Phi∣losophiae, c. 7. Quis apud nos non videat esse Ciceronem, sed Christiannm, hoc est, aliquem, qui eum ad lineam vi∣vum{que} expresse••it? Quis enim non advertit Lactantium Firmianum aequasse ipsum, & forte praecelluisse in Elo∣quendo?

  Idem, lib. 3. Epist. 10. Lactantius Ciceronis stilum effigiavit, vel ut quibusdam placet, supergressus est; mihi videtur rebus & sententiis crebrior, nec numeris injucun∣dior, nec sibi aequibilitate & candore posterior. Has quippe virtutes viribus maximis & amulatus, & assecutus est; hunc nec ••qualem posteri momorderunt, nemo elumbem & fractum, Asiaticum & redundantem nemo causatus est.
• f 1.529

  Interpreted in a favourable sence.] In the First Book, Chapter the 7th. he says, That God made Himself. His meaning is, That he is of Himself, and was not Created. He tells us, Lib. 4. Cap. 14. That Jesus Christ is never called God, lest it should be thought that there were two Gods. In the Fourth Book, Chap. 13th. he says, That the Son of God was made Man, that he might be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well as he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which is a vain Conceit. He says, Lib. 2. Cap. 9. That Darkness is from the Devil, who imitates God; and in the Second Book, Chapter the 12th. That Man was composed of two Natures that strive together; words that carry a Tincture of the Manichean Doctrine, unless they be fa∣vourably interpreted. In the Sixth Book, Chap. 13. He says, That Alms blot out the Sins of the Flesh: And he seems in the same place to maintain, That they who sin without Passion and without Surprize, shall never obtain Forgiveness for their Sins. In the Se∣venth Book, Chap. 5. & 14. He speaks of Immorta∣lity after such a manner, as might make us believe, that he was perswaded that the first Man was created Mortal. He falls into horrible gross Mistakes in his Chronology; as for instance, when he tells us, Lib. 4. Cap. 5. that Moses was 9••0 Years, and Solomon an Hundred and Fifty before the taking of Troy. In the Third Book, Chap. 23. He denies that there are any such things as Antipodes.
• * 1.530

  Commodia∣nus.
• a 1.531

  In the time of Pope Sylvester.] Chap. 33. He ex∣horts the Pagans to join themselves to the Congregation of Sylvester; which plainly shows, that he lived at that time, and wrote in Rome or in Italy, though his Stile is African.
• b 1.532

  Commodianus.] At the end of his Work he tells us, That his Name may be found out by searching after it in his Verses; now if we take the first Letters of every Verse in the last Strophe, and put them together, we shall find Commodianus Mendicus Christi.
• c 1.533

  Gazaeus.] In all Probability he is so called à Gaza, as he is named Commodianus à Commodis.
• * 1.534

  Julius Fir∣micus Ma∣ternus.
• a 1.535

  Baronius believes, that he was Bishop of Milan.] Ba∣ronius imagines that he was Bishop of Milan in the time of Julius, and that he assisted at a Council held at Rome under that Pope. There is indeed mention made of one Maternus a Bishop of Milan, who suffered in Dio∣clesian's time in the Martyrologies of the 18th. of July. But he that was the Author of this Treatise, never took upon him the Quality of a Bishop; and we don't find it related in any Authors of Credit and Reputation in the World, that there ever was a Bishop of Milan of that Name. On the contrary, it appears by St. Athanasius, That in the time of Julius there was no Bishop of that Name at Milan: And the Roman Council, of which Baronius is to be understood, is a Chimerical Council in∣vented by Isidorus.
• b 1.536

  Labbè maintains, that they belong to the same Man.] Possevinus and Simlerus distinguish them, and call the last the Younger of the two. Labbè pretends, that he lived in the Years 334 and 337, and according to this Computation, he might perhaps be the Author of the Treatise, De errore Profan•• Religionis.
• * 1.537

  Councils.
• a 1.538

  And only Council of the Apostles.] They usually reck∣on Four. The first concerning the Election of St. Matthias, Acts. 1. The Second concerning the Ele∣ction of Deacons, Acts 6. The Third, that whereof we now speak, Acts 15. The Fourth, Acts 21. Where the Priests of Jerusalem declare, That the Converted Jews might observe the Law, and Exhort St. Paul to make a Vow. But in strictness of Speech, only the Third of these Assemblies deserves the Name of a Council. The two First were not held upon the account of any Controversie; nothing was there de∣cided; the Christians found themselves Assembled to∣gether, but were not expresly Summoned. In short▪ they were Assemblies of all••the Christians, and not of the Apostles only. The fourth was rather a famaliar Conversation, than a Synodical Deliberation; and they only give some Counsel and an Advertisement to St. Paul, without deciding any Matter. And thus 'tis the Third Assembly alone, that deserves to be called a Council. The Council of Antioch is spurious, as we have elsewhere shown.
• b 1.539

  In any Credible Authors.] The Author published by Sirmondus under the Name of Praedestinatus, mentions some Councils that were held against the Ancient He∣reticks; but he is a Modern Author, and does not de∣serve Credit upon his own Authority.
• c 1.540

  For themselves.] Tertull. in lib. De Jejun. Agun∣tur praecepta per Gaercias illas certis in locis Concilia, per quae & altiora quaeque tractantur. Some Persons under∣stand this Passage of the Councils of the Catholicks; but he speaks of those held by the Montanists, as the following words plainly shew.
• * 1.541

  Of False Decretals, &c.
• a 1.542

  All these Decretals were unknown to the Ancient Fa∣thers.] Except that of St. Clement to St. James Trans∣lated by Ruffinus, all the rest were absolutely unknown, and no Author ever cited any of them before the Ninth Age of the Church.
• b 1.543

  The first that Published them, if we may believe Hinc∣mar, was one Riculphus.] 'Tis in the Twenty fourth Chapter of his Book against Hincmar of Laon, where it is said, that Riculphus brought the Book of Epistles, as it was collected by Isidore, out of Spain, and dispersed them in that Country. Benedict the Deacon tells us in the Preface before his Collection, that he drew these Decretals out of the Archives of the Church of Mentz, from whence Riculphus had formerly taken them, and where they were found by Autgarius his Successor.
• c 1.544

  Not by Isidore Archbishop of Sevil.] He died in 636. and the Author of these Decretals has taken some Pas∣sages out of the Council of To••••do, held in the Year 675, as also out of the 6th. Council celebrated A. D. 681. and out of Gregory the Second, and Gregory the Third, Boniface of Mentz and several others who lived after Isidore of Sevil.
• d 1.545

  There is reason to believe, that it was no Spaniard, but rather some German or Frenchman.] 'Tis exactly the Stile of the French or Germans about the Ninth Age. The greatest part of these spurious Letters are directed to Germans or French. The Author of them cites a Letter of an Abbess of France, to Boniface of Mentz, and another of the same Bishop. Besides, This Collection was first seen in France, being discovered at Mentz.
• e 1.546

  Some of these Decretals have been forged since Ricul∣phus.] He died in 814, and there are some Letters amongst them, where we find some Fragments out of the Council of Paris held in 829. Benedict was the first that exposed these Letters to the World; and he tells us, they had been found by Autgarius in the Ar∣chives of the Church of Mentz, where Riculphus placed them, having before brought them out of Spain. All this perhaps is only his own Invention.
• f 1.547

  Surnamed the Merchant or Sinner.] Both these Titles are to be found in the Preface. Isidorus Peccator, sive Mercator, servus Jesu Christi.
• g 1.548

  We read in History, that one named Isidore.] 'Tis Eu∣logius himself, some of whose Letters are preserved in the Bibliotheca Patrum; in which he testifies that he had two Brothers, and one of them was named Isidore, who retired to Mentz, and came thither along with some Merchants. Upon this Account possibly they might call that Isidore Mercator; perhaps also this is the Peccator; a Title, which they frequently gave themselves in that Age, and which Eulogius took often himself.
• h 1.549

  'Tis visible that all these Passages drawn out of diffe∣rent places have been patched together by some Impostor.] It is visible that the Authors themselves never borrowed those Passages out of these Letters. For, 1. Who will believe that an infinite Number of Writers would take long tedious pieces out of these Letters, and never cite them? 2. These Passages being very long and tedi∣ous, it does not appear probable, that they copied them out of these Letters. 3. They are the exact Stile of these Authors: Now who can imagine that the ancient Popes wrote so many different Stiles? 4. They are likewise out of their place in these Letters: Any Man may readily discover, that they are added and patched to the rest of the Discourse; whereas in the Books of the Fathers, from whence they are taken, they are in their proper Natural place.
• i 1.550

  The French Bishops made great Difficulty of acknow∣ledging them.] Hincmar rejected them, as having no Authority. Nicholas the First, in Epist. 42. to the Bishops of France, endeavours to confute those that rejected them; but since that time, they have been received and inserted into a Collection of Canons, though Learned Men, always questioned the Truth of them. However at present no body dares undertake to defend them, the Imposture being so abominably gross, that all People may discover the Cheat at first fight. They may serve as a remarkable Example both of the Credu∣lity of the preceding Ages, and the intolerable Impu∣dence of Impostors.
• * 1.551

  An Abridg¦ment of Doctrine, &c.
• * 1.552

  An Abridg∣ment of Doctrine.
• * 1.553

  An Abridg∣ment of Discipline.
• * 1.554

  An Abridg∣ment of Morality.