ALthough those that are able to read the Fathers in the Original Tongues, are but few; yet there are a great many who ought to have some Notions of their Lives and Wri­tings, because they are now-a-days made use of in the Controversies which divide Christians. The Teachers of the Church of Rome omit nothing to make Men believe, that the Fathers were of their Opinion; because they believe, that it is not lawful to reject a Doctrine grounded upon the Testimony of the greatest part of the Fa­thers. When they quote a Passage, which they think to be agreeable to their Notions, they don't fail to say, As a Holy Father said well. But if One objects to them some [Page 2]words which they cannot well get rid of: They answer, That 'twas only his private Opinion; and reject it as an Error.

The greatest part of the Protestants do not lay down the Consent of the Fathers, as a Principle of their Faith; but as for the rest, many of their Authors seldom make any other use of them, when they cite 'em, than the Roman Catholicks.

Hence it is, that in the Ecclesiastical Hi­stories of both Parties, such Places as seem proper to confirm the Opinion and Practices received now-a-days amongst us, are care­fully observed: Whereas such things as are thought to be Defective in their Conduct and Doctrine, are only mentioned by the bye. They persuade themselves that the Fathers, especially those of the First Cen­turies, held all the Opinions, which are lookt upon as Essential where they live; and then they think themselves obliged to heap up Praises upon 'em; and excuse, as much as they can, the Defects which are observed either in their Writings or Lives: So that instead of writing their History, they write, without being aware of it, their Panegyrick or Apology. Hence it is, that they who read such Books, believe that the Antients were Men of vast Learning, and extraordinary Holiness. From whence they conclude, that if they have ill treated [Page 3]any Body, they must needs have had some great Reasons for it; and that they were far either from unfaithfully relating, or ill confuting the Opinions of Hereticks. They think themselves obliged to imitate their manner of Reasoning and Acting, without much troubling themselves whether it be agreeable to the Precepts of the Gospel, or not. Thus it comes to pass, that we have no Histories of the First Centuries, that are faithful enough; and do not make such a Use of those Histories as we ought to make.

I am far from thinking that I can cure so inveterate a Disease, nor is it the Design of this Work: But at least, I think my self obliged to avoid, as much as I can, the Way of those, who give the Publick Partial Pane­gyricks, when Sincere and Impartial Hi­stories were expected from them. I have endeavoured to practice this in The History of Pelagianism,; and I shall yet endeavour to do it in the Life of Clemens, which I am going to write in few words.

TITƲS FLAVIƲS CLEMENS, famous for his Learing towards the End of the Second Century, was born at Athens, according to some Authors, who believe they can reconcile this Opinion with the Opinion of those who call him [Page 4] Alexandrinus, by saying that Athens was the Place of his Birth; and that he got the Sirname of Alexandrinus, because of his long stay at Alexandria. But his Style, though florid enough, is often obscure and intri­cate, and doth not much relish the Neat­ness and Elegancy of the Athenian Writers. However, it is certain that he begun his Studies in Greece, continued them in Asia, and ended his days in Egypt.

It appears, that he was not content to be instructed only by one Master, but that he travelled much to hear many, and so to get a more exact and full knowledge of the Christian Religion, as well as to improve in Humane Learning. His Masters had been Disciples of the Apostles, or had conversed with some Disciples of those Holy Men, as it appears by his manner of speaking of them, though he doth not express himself very clearly.

He says, Str [...]m. l. 1. p. 274. Eusebius, lib. 5. c. 11. reads this place some­what diffe­rently, up­on which Valesius may be consulted. That his Writings, com­posed without Art, are an Image and a Picture of those lively Discourses of the Happy Men, and truly worthy of Esteem, whom he had the Honour to hear. The one (as he goes on) whom I saw in Greece, was of the Ionick Sect. I have seen two in Calabria, one of whom was a Coelo-Syrian, and the other an Egyptian. I met two more in the East, one of whom was an [Page 5] Assyrian; and the other, with whom I con­versed in Palestine, was of a Jewish Ex­traction: This latter was the first in Me­rit. I stay'd in Egypt, where he had hid himself, to look for him. He was, as the Proverb says, A true Sicilian Bee. He gathered the Flowers scattered (if one may so say) in the Meadows of the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, by the means whereof he filled the Souls of those that heard him with a pure Knowledge. Those Men having preserved the true Tra­dition of the Blessed Doctrine, imme­diately after the Holy Apostles, St. Peter, St. James, St. John, and St. Paul, as a Child who keeps what he hath learned of his Father (Although there are Few like them) have lived to our time, by the Will of God, to shed into our Hearts the Seed which they had received of the Apostles their Predecessors.

'Tis of great moment to know what Master an Author had, to understand his Opinions right; for then, as now-a-days, the Disciples did particularly stick to the Method of their Masters; and explained Religion, as much as they could, accord­ing to the Principles of that Philosophy which they had learned of them. Thus the School-men, who were Peripateticks, explained Divinity by Aristotle's Prin­ciples; [Page 6]and Divinity is handled after the Cartesian way, where Des-Cartes Philosophy is admitted.

Wherefore the Learned Men of our Age have endeavoured to guess, who were those of whom Clemens speaks. It appears, by my Translation of the words of that Father, that he had five Masters; but Valesius al­lows him but four, because he follows the Reading of Eusebius. One can't positively affirm which is the best; but I may say, that the Interpreters who took the word [...] for a Proper Name, have done it without reason. 'Tis not likely that Cle­mens, who doth not tell the Names of the other, whom he acknowledges for his Ma­sters, should name this. Antiquity affords no Man whose Name was Ionick, and that Name may denote the Sect of Philosophy to which that first Master of Clemens did especially apply himself. Thales and Anaxi­mander, Philosophers of Miletus, a Town of Ionia, were the Heads of it.

Clemens Alexandrinus speaks well of those two Philosophers in his Writings: Thales (says he in one place) Strom. l. 1. p. 300. was a Phaenician, as Leander and Herodotus say. He is the only Man who seems to be conversant with the Egyptian Prophets, and we do not read that any one hath been his Master, &c. Anaxi­mander, a Milesian, and Son of Praxidamus, [Page 7] succeeded Thales, and had Anaximenes, Son of Eurystratus, a Milesian also, for his Suc­cessor. Anaxagoras of Clazomenes, Son of Hegesibulus, came after him; he removed his Auditory from Ionia to Athens, and had Archelaus, Socrates 's Master, for his Suc­cessor.

Elsewhere he says, That Thales Strom. l. 5. p. 595. being askt what God is? He answered, That which hath neither a Beginning nor an End. And that another having askt him, whether Men can hide their Actions from God? How can that be, answered he, since they cannot so much as hide their Thoughts from him?

Speaking of Anaximander, Archelaus, and Anaxagoras, Philosophers of the same Sect, he says, That the former hath estab­lisht Admen. ad Gent. p. 43. the Infinite for the First Being; and that the other two said that the Spirit go­verned the Infinite.

The Principles of those Philosophers may be seen more at large in Diogenes Laertius: and one may easily perceive, that some of them do well enough agree with those of the Jews and Christians; as, That what­ever is upon the Earth came out of the Wa­ter; That the Night was before the Day; That most Men are Wicked; That to live Justly, we must not do what we blame in others; That Heaven is our true Native Country, &c. 'Tis not therefore incredible, [Page 8]that a Philosopher of that Sect should have embraced Christianity, and been the first Master of Clemens Alexandri­nus.

All that can be said against it, is, that the Succession of the Philosophers of the Ionick Sect ended in Archelaus, Master of Socrates. But although there were no Masters of that Philosophy, who did immediately succeed one another; yet it doth not follow but there might be some Philosophers, in se­veral places, who followed the Opinions of Thales, and his first Disciples. Thus Dio­genes Laertius says, in his Preface, that the Italick Sect, of which Pythagoras was the Head, ended in Epicurus; although there hath been some Pythagoraean Philosophers many Ages after Epicurus. No Body ought to wonder that we should say, that a Christian follow'd a certain Sect of Phi­losophy, because it is only to be understood inasmuch as he thought it agreeable to Christianity. Thus Justin Martyr was a Platonick; and Pantaenus, Clemens's Master, Euseb. l. 5. c. 10. was a Stoick.

The Name of the second, whom he saw in Great Greece, or Calabria, is altogether unknown. Some Vales. ad Euseb. believe that the Assy­rian was Tatianus, a Philosopher and Disciple of Justin Martyr; and others, Baron. ad Ann. 185. Bar­desanes of Edessus in Syria, who had been [Page 9]a Valentinian, and never wholly laid aside the Opinions of that Sect.

As for him who was of Jewish Origin, some believe he might be Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, although History doth not say that he descended from Jewish Parents. Wherefore, others conjecture that he was one Theodotus, whose Doctrine Clemens Alexandrinus had expounded in his Hypo­typoles, or Institutions of the Christian Re­ligion; from whence it is that the Abridg­ment of that Work, which is to be found at the end of Clemen's Works, is intituled Extracts of the Eastern Doctrine of Theo­dotus. But some ascribe those Extracts to Theodotus Byzantinus, a Currier by Trade, but a learned Man, who was Excommuni­cated by Pope Victor, in the Year CXCIV. because he taught, that Christ was but a meer Man.

Lastly: The last of Clemens's Masters, whom he prefers before all the other, and to whom he applied himself, was Pantaenus. Eusebius is of opinion, that Clemens means Him, in the latter part of that Passage which I have citedout of him. Indeed, Pantaenus taught in Egypt, when Clemens settled him­self there; and this latter called him his Master Euseb. l. 5. c. 11. in his Hypotyposes.

Pantaenus's Native Countrey and Parents are not known; but 'tis certain that he ap­plied [Page 10]himself much to the Study of Philo­sophy, especially that of the Stoicks, per­haps being moved with the severe Manners and Maxims of the Philosophers, which did well enough agree with those of the Ancient Christians.

There had been Vid. Euseb l. 5. c. 10. & Hieron. in Script. Eccl. long before, nay, if some Authors are to be believ'd, ever since St. Mark the Evangelist, a Publick School at Alexandria, where the Catechumeni were taught; which Employment was bestowed only upon Men of Learning, and an Ex­emplary Life. Pantaenus was entrusted with it, and taught a long time in that City, Viva Voce, and by Writing. He wrote some Commentaries upon the Scripture, of which there are only some words extant Clemens. p. 808. in the Extracts of the Eastern Doctrine of Theodotus, wherein Clemens Alexandrinus speaks thus: Our Pantaenus, says, that the Prophets do commonly express themselves by the Aorist, and use the Present Tense instead of the Future and Preterit Tenses.

'Tis likely that Pantaenus was a Cate­chist, when Clemens came to Egypt; and that he studied some time under him, before he succeeded him. He applied himself there, as he did elsewhere, to the Study of Philosophy, although he was far from taking for Philosophers All those that went by that Name. Strom. l. 1. p. 315. We do not (says he) indif­ferently [Page 11]receive All manner of Philosophy, but that only of which Socrates says in Plato; The same thing which is observed in My­steries, is also to be found in Philosophy; Many carry the Thyrsus, but Few are truly inspired with the Spirit of Bacchus. Socrates did thereby obscurely intimate, That Many are Called, but Few Elected: For af­terwards he adds, That the Latter are, in his Judgment, those who have applied them­selves to Philosophy as they ought to do.

Clemens would not stick wholly to any Sect, lest he should take for Philosophers such as perhaps had only the Out-side of 'em, but followed that manner of Philoso­phising which was then call'd Eclectick, that is to say, the Method of those, who chose, out of all the Opinions of the Philosophers, those which seem'd the most rational to them, and made a System of them for their Private Use. Vid. La­ertium in Proem. & Suidam. Potamon of Alexan­dria, who liv'd in the time of Augustus, was the first that practised that manner of Philosophising. Clemens could not chuse a more commodious One for a Christian Phi­losopher, because there is not one Philoso­pher of whom all the Dogmata are agreeable to the Gospel; although a System, that will come up very near to that of the Christian Doctrine, may be made by collecting out of All the Philosophers what they said [Page 12]agreeably to the Light of Nature, or some ancient Traditions current almost through the whole World.

Clemens himself teaches us thus much; and assures us, that he applied himself to the Eclectick Philosophy, for the same Rea­son that I have alledged. Having said, That God had sent Philosophy to Men; Strom. l. 1. p. 288. he adds, That he means neither that of the Stoicks, nor that of the Platonicks, nor that of the Aristotelians. But (says he) I give that Name to the Truths which those Sects have maintained, and which may lead to Justice and Piety. I don't call the False Opinions of Men, Divine Things. He says elsewhere, P. 299. That the Barbarian and the Greek Philosophy took the Frag­ments of the Eternal Truths which it con­tains, not out of Bacchus's Mythology, but from the Reason which did always exist. He that would join again, what hath been divided, and would make a Private System out of it, might be sure of Knowing the Truth.

A like Thought is to be met with in Lac­tantius, who assures us, Inst. l. 6. c. 7. ‘That it is an easie thing to shew that the Whole Truth was divided among the several Sects of Philosophers; and if any one would col­lect the Truths scatter'd among the Sects, and gather them into One Body, he would [Page 13]not certainly disagree from the Chri­stians.’ Quod si extitisset aliquis, qui veri­tatem sparsam per singulos per sectasque dif­fusam colligeret in unum ac redigeret in cor­pus, is profectò non dissentiret à nobis.

Afterwards he says, That no Body could do it, but by a Divine Revelation; but that if it should happen, as it were by chance, that any one did it without that help, no­thing would be more certain than that Phi­losophy: and although he could not defend himself by the Authority of Revelation, Truth would maintain it self only by its own Light.

Afterwards he blames those who stick to One Sect, so as to embrace all its Opi­nions, and condemn all other Sects, being ready to dispute against all the Doctrines which they have not learned of their Masters. That Design, of collecting whatever the Philosophers said that was agreeable to the Gospel, is undoubtedly a fine one, and may very much conduce to convince Men of the Truth of the Chri­stian Religion. But to do it succesfully, 'tis necessary to understand both Philosophy and the Christian Religion well, and to confine one's self to clear and undeniable Articles, such as those that are Practical, and some few Speculative ones. The Hete­rodox of that time had introduced into the [Page 14]Christian Religion, for want of Considera­tion, an infinite number of Philosophical Doctrines, which have no relation with those of the Gospel.

Thus the Carpocratians Strom. l. 3. p. 430. believed, as Clemens testifies, That it was lawful to Lie promiscuously with all Women; and did actually do it, when they had supp't in a great Company, and put out the Candles. They fell into this Conceit, because Plato would have Women to be Common in his Commonwealth; and because they had wrested several Places of the Scripture, to make them agree with that Opinion. But Clemens is of opinion, that they understood neither the Scripture nor Plato well. This latter meant only this, he thinks, That there should be no Maid in the Common­wealth, but to whom All the Citizens might indifferently pretend; although if she had been Betrothed to any Man, others could no more hope to Marry her. I could easily shew, that Clemens doth not explain well Plato's Meaning, if this was a fit place for it.

The Marcionites, Ibid. p. 431, & 465, & seq. who said that Matter and Nature are Bad, and condemn'd Mar­riage, came by their Opinion, so contrary to that of Carpocrates, by Explaining some Passages of Scripture, by the Platonick Prin­ciples. Because the Scripture often de­scribes [Page 15]the Miseries of this World, and praises Continency, they fancied that the Sacred Writers had the same Notions of this Life and Generation, or Birth, that Hera­clitus and Plato had. Those Philosophers believed, that the Souls did exist before the Bodies, into which they are sent only to be punisht for the Sins which they had committed in another Life: So that, to speak properly, Birth should be called Death, rather than a Beginning of Life; and Death Life, because when we are born, our Souls are thrown into the Prison of the Body, out of which they are set at liberty when we die. Hence it is that those Phi­losophers, and many Poets after 'em, said, That 'twas better not to be born, than to come into the World; and to die in Child­hood, than to live many Years. Hence it is also, that some times they speak vehe­mently enough against the Use of Mar­riage; because, in their opinion, it did only conduce to build a Prison for some Unfortu­nate Soul, which was thrown into the Body that was produced.

The Valentinians had also learned what they said concerning the Generation of their Aeones, of Hesiod, as it will appear by com­paring the Beginning of his Theogonia with the Doctrine of the Valentinians, as it is reported by St. Irenaeus and St. Epiphanius, [Page 16]who do not fail to upbraid them with their having taken their Doctrine from that Poet. 'Tis likely they confounded Hesiod's Do­ctrine with that of the Holy Scripture, be­cause of some small resemblance that is be­tween 'em. I could easily shew, that Hesiod, by the Marriages between the Chaos, Dark­ness, Light, Heaven, Earth, Air, &c. meant only, that there is some Relation or Connexion between the Things which he joins, and that 'twas this that gave him oc­casion to Marry them together: But my Business is only to shew, by the Example of the ancient Hereticks, that the Primitive Christians made a great use of the Heathen Philosophy, and that many have perverted it, as Clemens hath observed in several places.

As for him, although he profest to follow the Method of the Eclecticks, and take out of every Sect what he thought fit; yet he was more enclined to the Stoick Philosophy, because Pantaenus his last Master, and whom he esteemed most, as we have seen, prefer­red that Sect before others. Wherefore 'tis observed, that Clemens hath a close and harsh Style, and that he affects some Paradoxes, and to use New Words; Characters where­by the Stoick, and those that studied in their Schools, were known. Stoicorum (says In Bruto, c. 31. Tully) adstrictior est oratio, aliquantóque [Page 17]contractior quàm aures populi requirunt. De Fin. lib. 4. Nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata: at quanta conantur? Mundum hunc omnem op­pidum esse unum, &c. Pungunt quasi aculeis, interrogatiunculis angustis. Those that un­derstand Greek, and have read something of Clemens, may have easily observed all this in his Stile. There are many Para­doxes in his Paedagogus; for instance, he maintains ( Book 3. Chap. 6.) That none but a Christian is Rich. A Paradox much like that of the Stoicks, who said the same thing of their Wise Man. Those Philosophers exprest themselves thus; [...], That the Wise Man only is Rich: And Clemens made no other Alteration in it, but that of [...], Wise Man, into [...], a Christian. The Reasons which he makes use of to prove his Assertion, are not very different neither from those of the Stoicks, as may be seen by com­paring what he says with Cicero's Explication of that Stoical Maxim, in his Paradoxes.

The Study of Heathen Authors pro­duced in Clemens milder Thoughts with respect to them, than those which Chri­stians have had since. He observes in many places, Strom. l. 1. p. 314. That whatever they say, is not false: And cites, to prove it, St. Paul's Discourse to the Athenians, Act. 17. where that Apostle tells 'em, That he preaches to them the same God, to whom they had [Page 18]erected an Altar, with this Inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD; the same God of whom Aratus had said, that We are his Off-spring. Clemens believes, that St. Paul approved what was Good in the Inscription of that Altar, and in those words of Aratus; and gave 'em only a clearer Knowledge of the True God, whom they already perceived, without knowing Him well. He elsewhere Strom. l. 6. p. 635. quotes a Book which was ascribed to St. Peter, and was entituled, ΚΗΡΥΓΜΑ ΠΕΤΡΟΥ, The Preaching of St. Peter. It appears, that Clemens made no doubt but that Book was St. Peter's: From whence one may conjecture, that there was nothing in it that was incon­sistent with the Orthodox Opinions of that time; and that, if we had it, we might look upon it as the Work of a Good Christian. The Place which Clemens quotes out of it, is too remarkable to be omitted here, since we may know from it what many Antients, who have not been charged with Idolatry, thought of the Heathens: Know that there is but One God (said St. Peter in that Book) who gave a Beginning to All Things, and is able to make 'em End; who is Invinsible, and seeth all things; who is shut up within no Bounds, and contains all things; who wants nothing, and whom all things stand in need of, [Page 19]since they exist by Him; who is Incom­prehensible, Eternal, and Incorruptible; who was not made, but made all things by his Powerful Word, that is, by his Son, according to the Spiritual Interpretation put upon the Scripture. Afterwards he adds (as Clemens goes on,) Worship that God, not as the Greeks do, because Honest Men among the Greeks Worship'd the same God with us, but without perfectly Knowing Him as those who have received the Do­ctrine of his Son. He doth not say, Do not worship the God whom the Greeks worship; but, Do not worship him as the Greeks do, Changing only the Manner of the Worship, but preaching no other God: He himself explains what he means, adding, For being led by their Ignorance, and not knowing God as perfectly as we do, they make Statues of those things which God gave them for their use, viz. Wood, Stone, Copper, Iron, Gold and Silver; and in­stead of employing those things for their use, they themselves worship 'em. Be­sides, they worship Beasts, which God gave them for their Food, the Birds of the Air, the Fishes of the Sea, the Creeping Creatures of the Earth, Wild and Four­footed Beasts, as well as Weasels, Rats, Dogs and Monkeys. They sacrifice to Men, what they should eat; and offering [Page 20]Dead Things to the Dead, as to Gods. they prove Ungrateful to the True God, and so deny his Existence. And that it may appear that We and the Greeks Know the True God, though in a different manner, he goes on thus; Worship not God neither as the Jews; for fancying that They only know God, they do not perceive that they worship Angels and Archangels, the Months, and the Moons; for if the Moon does not appear, they do not observe the Sabbath which they call First, nor the New Moon, nor the Days of Unleavened Bread, nor any Holy Day. Lastly, he concludes, saying; As for you, Learn the Just and Holy Doctrine which we teach you; observe it, and worship God after a new manner, through Jesus Christ. For we read in the Scripture, that God said, I make a new Covenant with you, diffe­rent from that which I made with your Fathers upon Mount Horeb. He hath given us a New Covenant; for both that of the Jews and Greeks is old; and We, who worship him after a Third and New manner, are Christians. He clearly shews (as Clemens adds) That one and the same God was known to the Greeks, after the man­ner of the Heathens; to the Jews, after the Jewish manner; and to Ʋs, after a New and Spiritual manner. He shews further, [Page 21]That the same God who gave the Two Cove­nants, is He who gave Philosophy to the Greeks, by which the Almighty is glorified amongst 'em, &c. As God was pleased to save the Jews, by giving them some Pro­phets; so he hath raised among the Greeks the most Honest Men, whom he hath di­stinguisht from the Vulgar, according as they were capable of receiving his Benefits, to perform the part of PROPHETS amongst 'em in their own Tongue. We learn this not only from St. Peter's Preaching, but also from St. Paul, when he says, Take some Greek Books acknowledge that the Sybil teaches but One God, and the Things that are to come. 'Read Hydaspes, and you'll find that he hath writ much more clearly concerning the Son of God; and that he said, that many Kings would arm them­selves against Jesus Christ, that they would hate him, and those that are called by his Name, &c. As the Preaching of the Gospel came in its time, so the Law and the Pro­phets were given to the Barbarians in their time, and Philosophy to the Greeks, which accustoms the Ears to the Preaching of the Gospel. Clemens speaks after the same manner in several other places; and testifies clearly enough, that Philosophy Vid. Ca­sab. Exer­citat. 1. in App. Baron. was among the Greeks, what Prophecy was among the He­brews; and that God hath always given [Page 22]equally to all Men the Means necessary to be saved: Which was also the Opinion of several other Greek Fathers.

Clemens therefore believed that the Greeks had no good Doctrine but what they took from the Barbarians, especially from the Jews, and the Sacred Books, which he en­deavours to prove in a thousand places; and 'tis well known, that it was the com­mon Opinion of the Fathers, who under­took to censure the Philosophy of the Greeks. The Jews said also the same thing, as it appears from a Passage of Aristobulus a Peripatetick, who is said to have been Tutor to Ptolemy Philometor, and who speaks thus: Plato did also follow our Laws, and hath shewed, that he had studied them well. Now before Demetrius's time, nay, before the Empire of Alexander, and that of the Perfians, they were translated by others (than the Septuagint) as well as the History of what happen'd to the Hebrews, our Fellow-Citizens, at their departure from Egypt, of what remarkable things they did and saw; and how they took possession, by their strength, of the Land of Canaan; and how the whole Law was given: so that it is manifest, that the Philosopher whom I have mention'd, took several things from it; for he was a Man of great Learning, as well as Pythagoras, [Page 23]who hath inserted several of our Opinions into his Doctrine. But this Author is suspected, for several Reasons; and being the only Man who hath mention'd a Tran­slation made before the Empire of the Per­sians, one may justly doubt whether this is not a Jewish Fable. However, it ap­pears, that in the time of this Author, whe­ther he be Genuine or Supposititious, the Jews charged the Heathens with having stoln the best things they had out of the Holy Books.

'Tis very likely that the Greeks had learnt many things of the Eastern Nations, as of the Egyptians and Babylonians; for they themselves Vid. Dio­gen. Laert. Proem. & ad illud Intt. confess it. But if this Matter was fully examined, one might perhaps find, that many things were clearly spoken of in Greece, before the Jews spoke of 'em after the same manner; and that the latter began to express themselves as the Greeks only since they conversed with them. I could alledge some Proofs of this Con­jecture, at least, as strong as all those which the Fathers have alledged to prove the con­trary. But because I should too much wan­der from the chief Subject in hand, I shall not undertake this Matter. Perhaps, some time or other, I shall publish a Dissertation about it.

I had rather observe here, That although Clemens doth often charge the Greek Philo­sophers with Theft; yet he believed that God had given them part of their Know­ledge by the Ministry of Inferior Angels, whereas he instucted the Christians by the Ministry of his Son. Strom. l. 7. p. 702. The Lord of all Men, of the Greeks as well as the Bar­barians, persuades those that will believe in Him: For he doth not force him to re­ceive Salvation, who may chuse and do what is in his power, to embrace the Hope which God offers him. 'Tis He who gives Philosophy to the Greeks, by the Mi­nistry of Inferior Angels, Ibid. l. 1. p 309. ( [...].) For the Angels have been long ago dispersed among the Na­tions, by the Command of God; but the Opinion of those that Believe, is the Gift of the Lord. Afterwards he proves at large, in the same place, that God is the Saviour of the Heathens, as well as the Jews.

As to the Ministry of Angels, to reveal Philosophy to the Greeks, Clemens, and those who have been of the same Opinion, came by it partly by reason of what Socrates said concerning his Daemon, who warned him of several things, and of whom Ibid. l. 1. p. 311, & 334. Clemens seems to speak, in such terms as may make one believe that he was persuaded that Socrates [Page 25]spake the Truth. And this agrees well enough with the Opinion of the same Fa­ther, and several others, who believed, after several Heathen Philosophers, that every Man had a Tutelar Angel, who might some­times advize him.

After what hath been said, 'tis no won­der that Clemens should ascribe a kind of Prophecy Ibid. l. 5. p. 601. to Plato, especially if it be con­sidered, that the words of that Philosopher suit Jesus Christ so well, that the Condi­tion which the Saviour of the World was reduced to, when he was nailed to the Cross, can scarce be better described now. He De Rep. l. 2. p. 423. ed. Ficin. describes a Perfect Vertue; and says that one might bestow that Name upon the Vertue of a Just Man, who yet should be accounted a Wicked, for being a strict Observer of Justice; and who, notwith­standing the ill Opinion which the World should have of him, would walk on in the way of Vertue even to Death, although he should be Whipt, although he should suffer several Torments, and be kept in Chains; although his Eyes should be burnt out with a red-hot Iron; although he should be exposed to all sorts of Misery, and at last be Cru­cified.

However, Clemens did not equal the Hea­then Philosophy to the Doctrine of Christ. He acknowledges, that before his coming [Page 26]into the World, it was only, as it were, a Degree and Preparation to Christianity; and that the Philosophers could only be lookt upon as Children, if compared to the Christians. He thought that Faith was Ne­cessary, since the Gospel had been pub­lished through the whole World. Strom. l. 7. p. 704. The Saviour (says be) having given his Com­mands to the Barbarians, and Philosophy to the Greeks, hath shut up Unbelief until his Coming; in which time, whosoever doth not believe in Him, is without Ex­cuse.

All the Books of Clemens are full of these Sentiments; and he defends them every where so clearly, and so fully, that it plainly appears, that in his time those Opinions were not (at least so commonly) lookt upon as dangerous; for it is not likely that they would have made him a Catechist, after his Master Pantaenus, or bestowed so many Praises upon him, as they have done since, if he had been lookt upon as a Man infected with dangerous Opinions. St. Chry­sostom maintained the same thing, concern­ing the Salvation of Heathens, in his 38th. Hom. upon St. Matthew.

'Twas necessary to observe, in few words, those Opinions of Clemens; because, with­out it, several places of his Writings cannot be understood; and because 'twas upon this [Page 27]account that he kept whatever he thought to be Rational in the Doctrine of the Hea­thens, rejecting only what seem'd to him False, or inconsistent with the Doctrines of the Gospel, or what had been blamed by Christ and his Apostles. Thus All the Greek Philosophers, even those who were for a Fate, having believed that Men are Free by their Nature, and can abstain from doing Evil, as they are able to apply them­selves to Vertue: And Christ and his A­postles having not undertaken to take them off from this Opinion, Clemens openly main­tains, That Men have a liberty of Doing Evil, or Abstaining from it. Strom. l. 1. p. 311. Neither Praises (says he) nor Censures, nor Rewards nor Punishments are Just, if the Soul hath not the power of Sinning or not Sinning, and if Sin is Ʋnvoluntary. The Pagans knew nothing of what was called since, Original Sin: And Clemens observing, that the Sa­cred Writers do not upbraid the Heathens with their Ignorance in this Matter; nor teach them, that even New-born Children deserve the Fire of Hell; he denies that Children are any ways corrupted. The before-mentioned Hereticks, who condemn'd Marriage, faid, amongst other Reasons, That Men did only thereby bring Polluted Children into the World, Ibid. l. 3. p. 468, 469. since David says of himself ( Psal. 51.) That he was [Page 28]conceived in Sin, and shapen in Iniquity. And Job maintains ( chap. 14. ver. 4, 5.) That none is free from Pollution, even though he should live but one Day. Hereupon Clemens exclaims thus; Let them tell us how a Child new-bown hath sinned; or, how he who hath done nothing yet, is fallen under Adam 's Curse. Afterwards, he explains that Passage of David, as if the Prophet had meant only, that he was descended from Eve, who was a Sinner.

It must be further observed, That a Man with such a Disposition of Mind, could scarce avoid believing that the Philosophers were of the same Opinion with the Apostles, as soon as he perceived some Likeness between their Terms. Thus Plato having spoken of the Three Chief Deities whom he acknowled­ged ( In the Life of Eu­sebius. as I shall shew elsewhere) in Terms like those that were used by the Primitive Christians, speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Clemens believed that the Do­ctrine of that Philosopher was the same with that of the Christians. I think ( says Strom. l. 5. p. 598. he) that Plato understood nothing else by it but the Holy Trinity; and that the Third Being mention'd by him, is the Holy Spirit, as the Second is the Son, by whom all things were made according to his Father's Will. Wherefore, when he speaks of Christ's Divinity, he doth not de­scribe [Page 29]it otherwise than the Platonicks did the Reason. Strom. l. 5. p. 598. The Nature of the Son (says he) is the most Perfect, the most Holy; that which hath the greatest share in the Empire and Government, and the most like Him who only is Almighty. 'Tis that Excellent Nature which governs all things according to the Father's Will, which Rules the World well, which Acts by an Unexhausted and Unwearied Power, and which sees the most secret Thoughts. The Son of God never leaves the Post from which he sees all things: He is nei­ther divided nor separated; he doth not go from one place to another; he is every where, and is confin'd within no Bounds. All Spirit, All Paternal Light, All Eye; he sees all things, understands all things, knows all things, and dives, by his Power, into the Powers themselves. To that Paternal Reason, who hath re­ceived that Holy Administration, the whole Army of Angels and GODS is subjected, because of Him who put them under him.

Clemens had another Opinion concerning the Humane Nature of Christ; which per­haps he entertained, lest he should make the Body of Christ inferior to that of the Gods of Homer. The Gods of that Poet, Iliad. 1. vers. 342. neither ate Bread, nor drank Wine. And [Page 30]Our Lord, according to Paed. l. 1. p. 202. Clemens, needed no Milk when he came into the World, and was not nourished with Meat, which he took only out of Condescension, and which did not undergo the same Change in his Body, which it does in ours. Hence it is, that Vid. Diss. P. Allix. de Sanguine Christi. Origen his Disciple believed that Christ had no Blood, but a Liquor like that which Homer ascribes to his Gods, and calls ΙΧΩΡ.

Plato says, in several places, that God inflicts no Punishment upon Men, but for their Good, and not at all out of meer Vengeance. Which Paed. l. 1. p. 116. & Strom. l. 4. p. 536. Clemens observes, so as to make one believe that he approves it. Plato said further, That the Souls are purged with Fire in another Life; and that after they have been purged, they are re­stored to their former state. Strom. l. 5. p. 549, 592. Clemens be­lieved that the Apostles had the same Thoughts, when they spake of a Fire which is to consume the World. And Vid. Huet. Orig. l. 2. quaest. 11. Origen his Disciple concluded from those Principles, That the Devils and Damn'd Men should be one day delivered from their Sufferings.

The Apostles describe the Place wherein Wicked Men shall be tormented, under the Notion of a Lake of Fiery Brimstone: They use the same word with the Pagans, to de­note the State of the Souls after Death, viz. ΑΔΗΣ: They say, that Men descend [Page 31]into it, and that Christ descended into it. This was enough to make Clemens exclaim thus: P. 592. What? was Plato ignorant of the Rivers of Fire, and the Depth of the Earth, which the Barbarians call Gehenna, and which he Prophetically ( [...]) named Tartarus? He hath mention'd Cocytus, Acheron, Pyriphlegethon, and such like Places where Wicked Men are punisht, that they may be mended. Clemens did also believe, with most of the Ancient Fathers, Strom. l. 6. p. 637, & seq. That Christ did really descend into Hell, and preached there to the Damned Souls, of which he saved those that would believe in Him.

I could alledge many other Instances, whereby it would appear, that Clemens ex­plained the Opinions of the Christians, by the like Doctrines which he found in the Philosophers. But the before-mentioned Examples will suffice to those who have neither Time nor the Means to read that Author. Those who will consult the Ori­ginal, will find enough of themselves.

One may further learn one thing from thence, which most of those who apply themselves to the reading of the Fathers, do not much mind; and without which, 'tis almost impossible to understand them well, in an infinite number of places: viz. That before One begins seriously that [Page 32]Study, the Heathen Philosophers, espe­cially Plato, must be carefully read. With­out this, One can't well apprehend what Grounds they go upon, nor succesful­ly examine the strength of their Rea­sonings, nor guess how they came by so many Opinions that are so different from those which are now entertained in our Schools.

Now to return to the Life of Clemens: The Antients do unanimously say that he succeeded Pantaenus in the Office of Cate­chist. He performed it with success; and many Great Men came out of his School, as Origen, and Alexander Bishop of Jeru­salem.

His Method of Instructing the Cate­chumeni, consisted in teaching them what was Good in the Heathen Philosophy, and so leading them by degrees to Christianity; which they more readily embraced, when they had relished many of those Maxims derived from the Light of Nature, and scat­ter'd in the Writing of the Philosophers, whom they saw every Body had a great Respect for, than if they had been roughly told, that they ought to renounce all their Opinions, and look upon the rest of Man­kind, not only as Men that were guilty of Error, but that had said nothing that was [Page 33]True. Strom. l. 1. p. 278. As Plow-men do not cast the Seed into the Ground, but when they have watered it; so (says Clemens) we draw out of the Writings of the Grecians, wherewith to water what is earthly in those whom we instruct, that they may afterwards receive the Spiritual Seed, and be able to make it easily spring forth.

In effect, the Light of the Gospel sup­poses that of Nature, and doth not destroy it. We don't find that Christ and his Apostles undertook to give us a compleat System of all the Doctrines that have some relation with Religion; they supposed that we were already provided with several Thoughts received in all Nations, upon which they reasoned: else they should have, for Example, exactly defined all Ver­tues, which they have not done, because they found in the Minds of all Men some Idea's, which, though imperfect, yet were most true. So that they were content to add what was wanting in them, or to take from them what ill Customs might have unfitly added to 'em.

Besides the Office of Catechist, Clemens was promoted to the Priesthood, in the Be­ginning, as 'tis thought, of the Empire of Severus; because Eusebius, writing the Events of the Year CXCV. gives Clemens the Title of Priest. About that time he [Page 34]began to defend the Christian Religion against Heathens and Hereticks, by a Work which he entitled Stromata, of which I shall speak hereafter; because in that Work, ac­cording to a Chronological Supputation, Lib. 1. pag. 336. he doth not go higher than the Death of Commodus: From whence Lib. 6. cap. 6. Eusebius con­cluded, that he compiled it under the Em­pire of Severus, who succeeded that Em­peror.

Severus being exasperated against the Christians. Vid. Dod­wel. Diss. Cyp. XI. §. 41, & seq. perhaps because of a Rebellion of the Jews, with whom the Heathens con­founded those who profest Christianity, began to persecute them violently. That Persecution having begun at Antioch, went as far as Egypt, and forced many Chri­stians to leave the Places of their Abode, wherein they were too well known, to give way to the Violence of the Persecution.

This seems to have given Clemens occa­sion to prove, that it was lawful to run away in time of Persecution. Strom. l. 4. p. 503, & seq. Having said, that Martyrdom cleanses from all Sins, and ex­horted those who are called to it, to suffer it; he observes. That we ought to shew, as well by our Manners as our Words, that we are persuaded of the Truth of the Chri­stian Religion. Afterwards he explains that place of the Gospel, When they perse­cute you in this City, flee ye unto another. [Page 35] The Lord (says he) doth not command us to flie, as if to be Persecuted was an That Rea­soning is grounded upon the Principles of the Sto­icks, who deni'd that Pain was an Evil. Evil; and doth not bid us avoid Death by fly­ing, as if we ought to fear it. He will not have us to engage or help any Body to do ill, &c. Those who do not obey, are rash, and expose themselves, to no purpose, to manifest Dangers. If he who kills a Man of God, sins; he who presents himself before a Judge's Tribunal, is also guilty of his own Death, &c. He helps, as much as lies in him, the Wickedness of him who persecutes him. If he exaspe­rates him, he is really the cause of his own Death, just as if he had exasperated a Wild Beast that devoured him.

A little while after the Apostles, some had been seen to look for Martyrdom: but some having challenged the Executioners, and having scandalously faln short of Chri­stianity, at the sight of the Torments, that Conduct Vid. Dod­wel. Diss. Cyp. XII▪ § 49. was found dangerous; and those who willingly offered themselves to Martyrdom, were Condemned, as it appears by many Passages of the Antients, and that of Clemens, which I have just now quoted.

As we ought not to avoid Martyrdom, when it cannot be done without renouncing Christianity, or a Good Conscience; so we ought to preserve our Lives as long as we can, whilst 'tis likely that we do Christians [Page 36]greater service, by prolonging it if we fly, than by losing it for the sake of Truth, by staying in those Places where the Persecu­tion rages, and which we may come out of, without ceasing to profess the Truth.

Those who blame, or make some difficulty to justifie some Protestant Ministers, who came out of a Kingdom, wherein they could not stay without imminent Danger, if they continued to perform their Functions; should before prove, that such a Conduct would have been more advantagious to Christianity, than their Retreat. Methinks the Solution of that Question, which hath been lately moved, viz. Whether they did well to retire? depends upon this.

Clemens seems about that time to have left Alexandria, since we read that he made some stay at Jerusalem with Alexander, who a little while after was Bishop of that City, and to whom he dedicated his Book entituled, The Ecclesiastical Rule against those who follow the Opinions of the Jews. Whilst he staid there, he was very useful to that Church, as it appears by a Letter of Alexander to the Church of Antioch, of which Clemens was the Bearer, Euseb. l. 6. p. 11. wherein that Bishop says, That he was a Man of great Vertue, as the Church of Antioch knew, and would know it again; and that being at Jerusalem, by an Effect of [Page 37]God's Providence, he had confirm'd and encreased the Church of God there.

From Antioch, Clemens returned to Alex­andria, where 'tis not known how long he lived. All that can be said, is, that he survived Pantoenus at least some Years; and that he was not Old when he writ his Stromata, since he himself Strom. l. 1. p. 274. says, That he made them, to serve him as a Collection in his Old Age, when his Memory should fail.

History is silent concerning his Death; but we may believe that his Memory was Blessed at Alexandria, if we consider those words of the Bishop of Jerusalem, whom I have just now mentioned, who, in a Let­ter to Origen, says, Euseb. ib. c. 14. That they both ac­knowledged for Fathers those Blessed Men who went out of this Life before them, and with whom they should be in a short time, viz. the Blessed Pantoenus, and Pious Clemens, of whom he had received great Help.

Amongst the many Works which Clemens wrote, there are but Three extant that are considerable. The First is, An Exhortation to the Heathens: Wherein he confutes their Religion, and endeavours to persuade them to embrace Christianity. The Second is entitled Paedagogus: In which he directs [Page 38]the Manners of Young Men, and gives them some Rules to live like Christians; wherein he mixes some Maxims extremely severe, and very remote from our Customs. The Third is, his Stromata, that is to say, Hangings; which he entitled so, Ibid. l. 1. p. 276. l. 4. p. 476. & l. 7. p. 766. because of the Variety of Matters which he handles in it.

He shews what Conformity there is be­tween several Opinions of the Heathen Phi­losophers, and those of the Jews and Chri­stians: He Censures what was Bad, as he thinks, in the Heathen Philosophy; De­fends and Explains the Christian Religion; Refutes the Hereticks; and shews every where a great Erudition. But he observes little or no Order, as he himself says at the End of the Seventh Book. He takes occa­sion from one thing to pass to another, without framing any Plan of what he is to say, and without having any other Design but to collect the most useful things he had learned by Study and Meditation.

His Style in this latter Work, is more harsh than in the two foregoing ones, wherein, notwithstanding, there is more Affectation, than Elegancy and Neatness. He pretends that he had some Reason for it: But there are Two great Inconve­niences in such a Method. The First is, That for want of Order, not only the [Page 39]strength of the most solid Proofs is not per­ceived, but also an Author confounds him­self, often repeats the same thing, and heaps up an infinite number of Arguments which prove nothing. The Second is, That a Care­lesness of Style, often makes what one says unintelligible; for 'tis not only Elegancy, but Clearness, that is wanting in it.

Now, an Affected Obscurity in Difficult Matters, as those are which Clemens treats of, is so much the more to blame; because 'tis no easie thing to be understood, even in Matters that are clear of themselves, if One does not express himself neatly. As we are to speak, only to be understood; so there is nothing can excuse an Author for not speaking clearly, but an absolute impossibi­lity of expressing himself better. And in­deed we are apt to believe, that those who have an Obscure Style, have no clear Head; and that they speak so, because they do not apprehend things more clearly than they speak 'em.

'Tis true, that the affected Ornaments of a far-fetch't Eloquence ought to be despised; but Clearness cannot be reckon'd among those Ornaments.

It must needs be confest, that there are but few Fathers, whose Writings are not lyable to the same Observation with those of Clemens. Most of 'em, whilst they ex­cuse [Page 40]themselves for not being Eloquent, do whatever they can to appear so after their way, as may be seen by a thousand high stroaks, and strained Metaphorical Expres­sions, which their Writings are full of; and we see but few, who thought that the greatest care a Writer should take, consists in exciting in the Minds of his Reader clear Idea's of what he says, by using Words with­out any Equivocation.

There is extant besides, an Homily of Clemens, entitled, What Rich Man is Saved? It was printed in Greek and Latin, by Com­befis, at Paris 1672; and at Oxford, 1683: With several other Greek and Latin Frag­ments. Those who took care of the German Edition (at Colen, 1688.) of Clemens's Works, should have printed it with the rest of his Works; it would have made their Edition more considerable, which otherwise is not much more valuable, as those that use it will find. They have only followed the Paris Edition, 1641, without adding any thing to it, except New Faults.

There is, at the End of the Volume, An Abridgment of the Doctrine of Theodotus, and of the Doctrine called Eastern in Valen­tinus's time. The greatest part of it is only an Interpretation of some Places of the Holy Scripture, which some think to have been taken out of the Eighth Book of [Page 41] Clemens Alexandrinus's Hypotyposes, (as I have already observed.) Lib. 6. cap. 14. Eusebius tells us, that he had interpreted the Holy Scripture after a compendious manner in that Work, without omitting (says he) the Disputed Writings, as St. Jude 's, and the other Catholick Epistles, St. Barnabas 's Epistle; St. Peter 's Apocalypsis; and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he assures to he St. Paul 's, &c.

God. CIX. Photius, who had seen that Work, says also, that the Design of it was, to Explain the Holy Scripture; but he accuses the Au­thor of maintaining, That Matter is Eter­nal; That the different Forms which it re­ceives, are imparted to it by virtue of I know not what Decrees; That the Son is in the number of Things Created; That there hath been Many Worlds before Adam; That Eve was formed out of him, after another manner than what the Scripture relates; That the Angels having been con­versant with some Women, had Children by them; That the Reason was not made Flesh, tho' it seem'd so to Men; That there are Two Reasons of the Father, the least where­of appeared to Men, and was made Flesh.

If we had those Books still, we might perhaps more clearly know that they are only some Platonick Doctrines, some of which Photius did not well understand, be­cause [Page 42]of the Equivocation of the Terms; and the other were not in Clemens's time lookt upon as Impieties, as they have been since Systems of Divinity were compiled among Christians.

In the first Ages, when no Systems were entertained in the Schools, and explained to the Youth, as they are now, every one Philosophized, as well as he could, upon Matters of Speculation; and explained Spe­culative Doctrines according to the Philo­sophy he had learned: Except some Opi­nions, which either because they had made a great Noise, or for some other Reasons were condemned by the Bishops, they were very free in their Thoughts. If any one doubted of it, he might convince himself of the Truth thereof, by the strange Opi­nions which have been entertained by some of the Fathers, who were rank't among the Orthodox, and for which they were not censured in their time. One may see many Examples of it in the Fourth Chapter of Dallaeus's Book de Ʋsu Patrum; which, notwithstanding the Panegyrists of Anti­quity, will always be accounted a Good Book by those that know Antiquity. Such was, for Example, St. Hilary's Opinion, who believed that Christ felt no Pain when he was scourged.

But Photius suspects that the Hereticks [Page 43]corrupted the Works of Clemens; and Ruf­finus had the same Thoughts, as it appears by his Apology for Origen, which is in the IV. Tome of St. Jerom's Works. Yet if there was no more in them, than what Pho­tius cites, there would be no reason to be­lieve that they were much corrupted, though it cannot be absolutely denied. The reason of it is, that whatever that learned Patriarch may say, those very Opi­nions, if well understood, are to be found in the other Works of Clemens, and are agreeable to the Principles which he follows every where.

1. He approves Strom. l. 5. p. 599. clearly enough the Opinion of Heraclitus, who believed that the Matter of the World is Eternal; and he shews that he esteems him, for having di­stinguisht the Matter of the World from its Form; the first whereof is immutable, and the second subject to change.

2. As to the Reasons why Matter receives certain Forms, Photius knew no more of it than Clemens.

3. If Clemens had said that the Su­preme Reason was Created ( [...],) one ought to observe, that See the Life of Eu­sebius. to Create, Produce, Beget, signifie the fame thing in Plato; and that it doth not follow from thence, that he believed the Reason was Begotten or Pro­duced out of Nothing.

4. It was Plato's Opinion, That the Form of the World doth altogether change in a certain number of Years; and that many such Changes happen'd before the Revolution in which we are, began. One may read his Politicus concerning this, wherein he maintains, that the Revolution of all the Stars, must cause an Universal Change in the World. Thus, in his Opi­nion, what was said, That Men had their Original from the Earth; happened in the Beginning of a Revolution. Pag. 175. 'Tis what (as he goes on) our Predecessors said, who lived at the End of the fore­going Change, and were near the follow­ing, as well as those who were born in the Beginning of this. The Stoicks be­lieved also the same thing, as Strom. l. 5. p. 549. Clemens re­ports, who doth not seem to dislike their Opinion, and fails not to confirm it by the Authority of Plato.

5. The same Philosopher thought that the First Men were Androgynes, and had Four Feet, Two Heads, and so with the other Members, but that God divided them afterwards into Two, (as may be seen in his Feast.) Some Rabbins have said some­thing like it, and grounded their Opinion upon this, That 'tis said, That God Vid. Bres­chith Rab­ba, in sect. VIII. Created Man Male and Female. This seems to be only an ingenious Fancy, not an Opinion [Page 45]which those Authors did seriously entertain. It may be, that Clemens took some delight in making some Reflections upon Plato's Opinion, with so much the greater freedom, because, perhaps, he believed, as his Disciple Origen, that there was abundance of Alle­gories in the Beginning of Genesis.

6. As for the Angels that were in Love with Women, Clemens Pad. l. 3. p. 222. Strom. l. 3. p. 450. l. 5. p. 550. says, in more than one place, that he thought the same thing; and most of the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers have explained so the Beginning of the Sixth Chapter of Genesis. Photius can­not blame that Opinion, without censuring, at the same time, all Antiquity; but 'tis his Custom to treat ill the most Ancient Authors, when he finds in them some Opi­nions that were not received in his time, or some Expressions which he doth not think energick enough to express such Thoughts as, in his judgment the Antients should have had; because 'twould have been an Heresie, not to think so, in his time.

7. The Incarnation being a Mystery which we do not comprehend, and Clemens's Style not being, for the most part, very clear, he might have exprest himself so as not to be well understood by Photius; which is so much the more easie to believe, because that Patriarch commonly explains the Thoughts of the Antients agreeably to the [Page 46]Opinions and Ways of Speaking of his time.

The Writings of the Antients are full of Equivocal Terms, which they use in such a sence, as they had no more in the follow­ing Ages. Terms which signifying Spiri­tual and Obscure Things, and very com­pounded Idea's, must necessarily be diffi­cult to understand; because they took no care to Define them, and make an exact Enumeration of the Idea's which they fixed to them. Perhaps it did not so much as come into their Mind, that this was very necessary to be well understood. At least One may observe, that when they en­deavour to explain themselves about those Obscure Matters, they use Terms as Ob­scure as the fore-going.

8. One may observe an Example of it, concerning the Two Reasons mention'd by Photius. Those who will carefully read the Second Tome of Origen upon St. John, may observe, that he establishes a First or Supreme Reason, which is Christ's Divinity; and many Inferior Reasons, which are made according to the Image of the Precedent. It might be said, in that sence, that None but the Second Reasons became Flesh, be­cause none but they animate Humane Bo­dies; for although the First was united to the Humane Nature of Christ, it did not supply the Place of a Soul.

So that although Clemens had said what Photius pretends, yet he could not be charged with Heresie upon that account: But he did not say so, as appears by the Passage which Photius himself quotes out of him: The Son is called Reason, as well as the Paternal Reason; but 'tis not that which was made Flesh: Nor is it the Paternal Reason neither, but a Divine Power (which is, as it were, an Emanation of that same Reason) which became Spirit ( [...]) and is come into the Hearts of Men. By those Terms, The Son, we must not understand the Only Begotten Son of God, but the Man; as it clearly appears by what follows. Clemens, perhaps, call'd him only [...]; because he might have before clearly enough denoted whom he meant by that word. Photius, who did not well apprehend the Meaning of that Passage, might easily mi­stake the Series of that Discourse: As the Jesuite Schottus, otherwise a Learned Man, was altogether mistaken in the Latin Tran­slation of those Words, as one may pre­sently observe, by comparing it with mine.

Lastly, We have a Latin Work In Bi­bliot. Pat. ascribed to Clemens, and intituled, Commentariola in Primam Canonicam S. Petri, in Epistolam Judae, & Tres Epistolas S. Joannis Apostoli. There is indeed several things in those [Page 48]Notes, which do not differ from Clemens's Doctrine; but we can't know whether they are an entire Translation of part of the Hypotypoles, or only some Extracts cor­rected according to the Interpreter's mind.

'Tis well known, that when the Latins translated some Greek Writings, they were very apt to make such Alterations in them as they thought fit, (as Ruffinus hath been upbraided with it.) Nay, there is no need to look so far for Examples of that ill Custom, since we have one with relation to part of Clemens's Hypotyposes, of which Cas­siodorus speaks thus: ‘ Lib. 1. de Just. Div. Script. Clemens Alexan­drinus explained, in the Athenian Lan­guage, the Canonical Epistles, that is, the First Epistle of St. Peter, the First and Second of St. John, and that of St. James, wherein there is many subtle things; but also some unwarily spoken, which we have caused to be so translated into Latin, as to take away what might give scandal; that his Doctrine thus purified, might be more safely read.’ Ʋbi multa quidem sub­tiliter sed aliqua incautè loquutus est, quae nos ita transferri fecimus in Latinum, ut ex­clusis quibusdam offendiculis, purificata doc­trina ejus securior posset hauriri.

Clemens also composed Five Tracts, which are lost: 1. The Rule or Canon of the Church, against those that followed the Opinions of [Page 49]the Jews. 2. Concerning Easter. 3. Con­cerning III Speaking. 4. Some Disputes about Fasting. 5. An Exhortation to Pa­tience, directed to the Neophytes.

Having thus made some Particular Re­marks upon every one of his Works, and some General Ones on that Occasion; what remains, is only to take notice of Three Things.

1. He often cites Suppositious Writings, as if they had been acknowledged by every Body, as one may observe by that Place of St. Peter's Preaching, which I have alledg'd; and another of St. Paul, which seems to have been taken out of the Book of his Travels; upon which Eusebius and St. Je­rome may be consulted.

Which may make one believe, that the great Reading of that Learned Man, gave him no refined Palate. One need not be a great Master of this sort of Learning, to perceive, that what he cites out of them, doth not suit the Style of the Apostles, and is not agreeable to their Principles. It cannot be doubted, but that they believed, that the God whom the Jews worshipped, was the True God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who says so himself.

Nor can the Jews be charged with having served the Angels, the Month, and the Moon, with any probability; and the Reason which the Author of St. Peter's Preaching gives for it, is so ridiculous, that none but such as will be deceived, can be deceived by it. 'Tis true, that some Huet. in Orig. T. 2. p. 212. Learned Men have otherwise explained that Accusation which that Author lays upon them; but one may easily see, by what follows, that he understood it in a more simple manner than they do.

However, that Book being manifestly Sup­posititious, Ibid. T. 14. in Joan. Origen dealt much more pru­dently than his Master; since being to re­fute Heracleon a Valentinian, who drew some Consequences against the Old Testa­ment, from those pretended words of St. Peter, he begins with saying, That one should enquire whether that Book is truly St. Peter 's? whether it is not Supposititious? whether it be not Interpolated? and then he shews, that the Jews worshipped the Creator of the World.

But 'tis the Custom of many Antients, to make use of all sorts of Arguments and Books, to bring over Men to their Opi­nions. If any should use the same Method now, they would presently be accused of Simplicity, or want of Honesty: But every Age hath its Customs. However, 'tis cer­tain, [Page 51]that the Rules of Good Sence have al­ways been the same; and 'tis not less cer­tain, that Great Learning makes not a Man more Exact and Judicious, according to that famous Maxim of Heraclitus, which Clemens cites some where, [...].

2. Clemens is wont to explain the Scrip­ture Allegorically, without making his Al­legories look likely, as 'twas the ordinary Custom of the Antients. One may see what Huetius says concerning the Origin of Allegories, in his Origeniana, lib. 2. chap. 2. qu. 14. But if one carefully reads what Clemens says of it in the Fifth Book of his Stromata, where he doth somewhat enlarge upon this Matter, one may easily perceive, that that which chiefly induced him to believe that the Holy Scripture is full of them, is, because the Egyptians and the Greeks were wont to hide the Secrets of their Philosophy under some Emblems and Fables. 'Tis true, that the Jews had the same Thoughts, even before the Com­ing of Christ. 'Tis true also, that in the remotest Times, that Nation expressed her self not only by clear Words, but also by symbolical Actions, as it appears by several places of the Old Testament. However, there is not one Example, by which it ap­pears, that they designed to hide the [Page 52]Doctrines of the Jewish Religion; which, on the contrary, they express very clearly, and after a simple manner.

There are but some few places of the History of the Beginning of the World, which may be turned into Allegories with some likelihood; and only with respect to some Circumstances, which do not at all concern the Essential part of the History, nor belong to the Worship of God, Good Manners, or the Doctrines, without which they could not serve God, nor be Good Men, according to the Law. In all the rest of the History of the Hebrews, there is nothing that looks like an Allegory, every thing in it is simple and easie to be understood; which makes one believe, that those that wrote it, were no Allegorists; and that if there is any thing in the most ancient Events of the History of Mankind, that may be understood that way, the He­brews took that turn, only because Tradi­tion, or the Memoirs upon which they wrote, were so worded.

It doth not appear, that they designed to Philosophize, or teach any Doctrines of Natural Philosophy, either clearly or ob­scurely; and those Places wherein Philo endeavours to find some Philosophical Doctrines, are so violently wrested, that any Body may see the Sacred Writers [Page 53]never thought of what he makes them say.

Indeed, if we reflect upon the Origin of Allegories among the Heathens, we shall find that they came out somewhat late: And when the Philosophers undertook to give an Account of the Fables, or ancient Histories of the Gods, that is, to save the Honour of their most ancient Historians, who were accused of having absurd Notions of so ex­cellent Natures, as those of the Gods were; so they were obliged to make those, whom those scandalous Histories offended, believe, that the Poets meant quite another thing than what they said, and from thence comes the word Allegory. For a Heracl. Pont. Alleg. Hom. pag. 412. Ed. Amstelod. Westenianae. Discourse, which taken in its proper sence ( [...]) signifies quite another thing than what is meant by it, is properly an Allegory. Thus some Histories were turned into Al­legories among the Grecians, lest they should believe that the Gods of Greece had been only Vitious Men.

The Jews, who had never applied them­selves to the Study of Criticks and Philoso­phy, were no sooner among the Greeks, but they admired that Method of Explain­ing Religion; and made use of it to explain the Sacred Writings after a manner more agreeable to the Taste of the Heathens; as may be seen by the Example of Philo, who [Page 54]explains all the Old Testament after the Platonick way. Nay, they went so far, as to explain Allegorically not only such Places as might have some difficulty, but also the clearest and plainest, without so much as excepting those which concern Manners, and which being literally under­stood, contain a most excellent sence for the Conduct of one's Life; nor the plainest Histories, and from which one may draw most useful Instructions, without looking for any other sence, but that which offers it self to the Mind. Philo is full of such like Examples.

The Christians imitated the Jews after­wards, and were not contented to explain the Old Testament Allegorically: They did the same with respect to the New, though neither Christ nor his Apostles have proposed any Doctrine after an Em­blematick manner, but what they explained clearly enough, to save the trouble of seek­ing its meaning, by having recourse to Allegories, in which there is no certainty. For it must be confest, that according to that Method, if the Sacred Writers had said quite another thing than what they said, or, if you will, the quite contrary; yet one might find as good a sence in them, as those, that will try it, will presently observe. Hence it is, that the Pagans themselves, [Page 55]who had been the Contrivers of that strange way of interpreting ancient Books, could not abide that the Christians should make use of it; as the Christians in their turn laught, at the strained Interpretations of the Heathens. Nay, some Pagans, more quick-sighted than others, thought they were ridiculous. Wherefore, the Christians and the Jews would have done much better to keep close to the Letter, than to use so uncertain a Method to defend the Holy Scripture against the Pagans.

3. Although several Opinions of Clemens Alexandrinus may justly be accounted Er­roneous; yet if we consider every parti­cular Opinion which he held, and is no more admitted amongst us, we shall ob­serve, That some of them are lookt upon as Erroneous, only because the contrary Opinions have been introduced, I know not how, into most Schools, though Men have had no New Light concerning them. As soon as a Famous Man hath maintained a Doctrine, without being contradicted by Men of an Equal Reputation or Authority, or even without any Opposition; such a Doctrine takes root so well, that Men use themselves, by degrees, to look upon the contrary Opinion as an Error, without knowing why.

Opinions are often introduced as Cu­stoms, which owe their Beginning to the Example of some few Persons, whom others imitate. They so affect Mens Mind, that any other besides those which he follows, seem to him ridiculous. A Garment which is not commonly seen, seems Extravagant, though it was Fashionable in former Times: The same may be said of an Opinion which is grown old, it is disliked, because no Body follows it at present. For Example, Paed. l. 1. p. 101. Clemens believed, that Angels had Bo­dies: And it was also the Opinion of Vid. Ori­geniana Huetii, l. 2. c. 2, 5. Origen, and most of the Fathers. Yet that Opinion is branded as an Error, with­out any Reason: For although the Scrip­ture teaches us, that Spirits have neither Flesh nor Bones, and that Angels are Intelligences; yet it says no where, that they are not cloathed with Bodies. There hath been no Revelation since upon that Matter, nor have we found out any con­vincing Reason that can persuade us the contrary. Notwithstanding, tis commonly said that 'tis an Error, because the School-Men have said so. I confess, that the Fa­thers, who have ascribed Bodies to the Angels, have alledged no evident Reason to prove it: But all that could be concluded from thence, is, that They affirmed a thing which They knew not no more than We.

Thus we should have suspended our Judgment, and affirmed nothing concern­ing a Subject which was equally unknown to us. Such a Suspension suited not with the Dogmaticks, who can hardly confess that they know not all things; and believe 'tis the part of a Witty Man, to Determine himself speedily upon all sorts of Questions. Indeed, without this, 'tis not possible to frame a System as compleat as it ought to be, to be accounted a Learned Man: And it would be a shameful thing to confess, that a Thousand Questions might be askt upon every Article; which could not be answered, if one should say nothing but what one knows. The same Principle may be applied to several other Doctrines of Clemens; concerning which, 'twere better ingeniously to confess one's Ignorance, than to condemn some Opinions about which we are in the dark.

Hence it is, that notwithstanding those Opinions, some Antients have bestowed many Encomium's upon him. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 13. Eusebius says, That his Books are full of Useful Learning. Cat. Scrip. Eccles. & in Ep. ad Magnum Orat. T. 2. St. Jerom says, That he hath writ very fine Works, full of Learning and Eloquence, which he took out of the Holy Scripture, and Profane Authors. And elsewhere, Clemens (says he) Priest of the Church of Alexandria, the most Learned [Page 58]of our Authors, in my judgment, wrote Eight Books of Stromata; as many of Hypotyposes; a Book against the Pagans; and Three Volumes, entituled the Paeda­gouge. Is there any thing in his Books, but what is full of Learning, and taken from the bottom of Philosophy? Cyril of Alexandria affirms, in his VIth. and VIIth. Books against Julian, That he was a Man of wonderful Learning, who dived to the bot­tom of Greek Learning, with such an Exactness as few before him could attain to. Haeret. Fab. l. 1. c. 6. Theo­doret says, That that Holy Man surpassed all others by the extent of his Learning.

What hath been said, is sufficient to have a Notion of the Doctrine of Clemens; I shall only add a word concerning the Cologne Edition, 1688. Two sorts of Faults may be observed in it, whereof some are Common to it, with many other Edi­tions of the Books of the Antients; and the other are Particular to it.

As to the First, one may observe, That the Editions wherein there is no Distinctions and Paragraphs, want a thing which seems not to be of great moment in it self, but yet doth very much conduce to the under­standing of an Author. The Beginning of a new Section, is as it were an Adver­tisement to the Reader, who only by cast­ing his Eye upon a Page, sees how many [Page 59]Arguments, and what Matter it contains. Else the want of distinct Paragraphs doth somewhat confound the Mind, and forces the Reader to be more attentive to under­stand what he reads, and to look for a Con­nexion where there is none, or confound two Arguments. Now, one should always endeavour to lessen, as much as can be, the Trouble of the Reader, who takes Pains enough to understand the Things them­selves.

Paragraphs produce, in some respects, the same effect as the Distinction of Chap­ters; which cannot be neglected, without breeding Confusion. 'Tis true, the An­tients often neglected to divide their Books or Discourses into certain Parts: But if it be well consider'd, the want of Order in many of their Writings, was the true cause of that Neglect. 'Twas easier to pass from one subject to another, by reason of some small Connexion that was between 'em, or confusedly to write down a crowd of Thoughts, than to reduce 'em into a cer­tain Order: as it would be more easie to heap up the Materials of a House, than to give every one of them its due place. Those who desire some Examples of Books with­out Order, need only cast their Eyes upon Seneca or Tertullian, who both said, with a great deal of Enthusiasm, whatever came [Page 60]into their Mind, scarce ever having a No­tion of any Order, which they design'd to follow. If those Authors were printed so as to divide their Reasonings by Paragraphs, they might be much better understood.

The other Fault, which those that take care of the Editions of Ancient Authors, often commit, is, that they do not distin­guish in a different Character the Quota­tions from the Words of the Author: From whence it comes to pass, that those who do not read them attentively, ascribe to one Author what belongs to another. This Dr. Cave hath done, in his English Life of Clemens Alexandrinus, which hath been very useful to me in the writing of this. Clemens, in the above-mention'd place, con­cerning the Philosophy which he approves, cites Socrates, who, in Phaedo, applies to the Philosophers this Proverb, which was used in the Mysteries, There are many who carry the Thyrsus, but few that are truly filled with the Spirit of Bacchus. P. 380. Ed. Ficin. Socrates adds immediately after, These, as I believe, are only those who applied themselves to Phi­losophy as they ought to do, OF the Number whereof I have endeavoured to be, as much as I could, &c. The whole Passage being in Roman Characters, Dr. Cave thought that those words, Of the Number whereof, &c. were Clemens's; whereas they are Socrates's [Page 61]as may be seen in Plato, and even by read­ing the rest of the Page wherein Clemens cites 'em. If the whole Passage had been printed in Italick Letters, Dr. Cave would not have mistaken it: Which ought not to seem strange to those who know, that to write the Life of an Author, collected out of several places, so many things must be heeded all at once, that 'tis a hard matter not to confound one's self.

Besides, by distinguishing the Matters by Paragraphs, and Quotations by different Characters, those who have read an Author, may more easily find out again such places as they want; which is no small Advan­tage.

As to the Edition of Cologne, there are Three Index's; the first, of the Places cited by Clemens; the second, of the Con­tents; and a third, of Greek Words and Phrases, either worthy of Observation, or such as that Author hath used in a particular Sence. If those Index's were Compleat and Correct, they would be undoubtedly very useful; but they are neither: There is a great many Faults in the Numbers, and the Sence of Clemens is often mis-represented in them. That Passage of Job, There is none but is polluted, is referred to the 25th. Chapter of his Book, whereas 'tis in the 14th. There is in the Index, Peccato origi­nali [Page 62]infectae omnium animae & corpora, 468. d. On the contrary, Clemens confutes that Opinion in that place; but Sylburgus, or another who made that Index, in all proba­bility, thought of what Clemens should have said, in his judgment, rather than what he did really say.

There is besides a Fourth Index before the Book, which contains a Catalogue of the Authors cited by Clemens; but the Pages in which they are cited being not marked, 'tis altogether useless.

'Twere to be wisht, for the Common­wealth of Learning, not only that Kings were Philosophers, or Philosophers Kings; but also, that Printers were Learned Men, or Learned Men Printers; and that we might see again the Age of the Manutius's and Stephens, to give us good Editions of the Writings of the Antients, and make that Study more Easie, which is Difficult enough of it self, without encreasing the Difficul­ties by our own Negligence.

THE same Reason that induced me to give the Publick the Life of Clemens Alexandrinus, obliges me to give an Account of that of Eusebius of Caesarea. It will be so much the more Curious to those who cannot consult the Originals, because there happened more Remarkable Things in Eusebius his time, than in Clemens's, and because the former was in a Higher Station than the latter.

Eusebius was born in Palestine, and per­haps at Caesarea; at least Ap. So­crat. l. 5. c. 8. he seems to intimate, in the beginning of his Letter to the Christians of that City, That he was Instructed in the Christian Faith, and Bap­tized [Page 64]there. He was Born towards the End of the Third Century, though we cannot find exactly the Year of his Birth. He be­gan early to apply himself to Learning, especially to Divinity, as it sufficiently ap­pears in his Writings, wherein may be seen, that he had carefully read all sorts of Pro­fane Authors; and that all the Writings of the Christians who wrote in Greek, and those of the Latin, that were translated into that Tongue, were known to him. He had the advantage of the curious Library which the Martyr Pamphilius, his particular Friend, had collected at Caesarea. Its af­firm'd, Hieron. Epist. ad Chron. & Heliod. An­tipater Bo­strencis in Concil. Ni­caen. II. Act. 5. That being become Bishop of this City, he entreated Constantine (who passed through it, and who had bid him ask some Favour in behalf of his Church, that he would permit him to make a search into all the Publick Registers, to extract the Names of all the Martyrs, and the Time of their Death. However, he has committed Faults enough in Chronology, as Joseph Scaliger, and a great many other Learned Men have observed; and especially in relation to Mar­tyrs, as Mr. Dodwel has lately shewn in his Dissertation de Paucitate Martyrum. But it was no easie Matter to escape these kind of Faults in such a Work as his Ecclesia­stical History, which was the first of that sort that was ever undertaken; the Primi­tive [Page 65]Christians taking no care of the History of their Times.

Eusebius is commonly call'd the Son of Pamphilius: Whether he was really his Son, as some affirm; or his Nephew, ac­cording to the Opinion of others; or in fine, as most believe, by reason of the great Friendship between them. This Pamphilius was of Beryte in Phoenicia, and Priest of Caesarea; he held Origen's Opinions, for whom he wrote an Apology, of which there remains to us but a part of it in Latin, among the Works of Origen and St. Jerome. He made it in Prison, where he was put in the Year 307, under the Emperor Decius, and where Eusebius did not forsake him. He could write only the five first Books, having been hinder'd from finishing Phot. Cod. CXVIII. this Work, by the Death which he sustered for the Gospel, two years after he had been thrown into Prison. But Eusebius finish'd it, in adding thereto a sixth Book, and pub­lish'd it after his Death. Pamphilius had for Master Id. Cod. CXIX. Pierius Priest of Alexandria, who likewise suffer'd Martyrdom, and was also of Origen's Opinion, whose Assiduity and Eloquence he imitated; which got him the Name of Second Origen. It's not amiss here to relate the Judgment which Photius makes of his Works:

He advances several things (says he) remote from those which are at present establish'd in the Church, perhaps ac­cording to the Custom of the Antients: Yet he speaks after a pious manner of the Father and the Son, excepting that he assures us, that they have Two Essences ( [...],) and Two Natures ( [...],) using the words Essence and Nature, as it appears by what precedes, and follows in this Passage, for that of Hypostasis, and not in the sence of the Arians. But he speaks of the Holy Spirit in a dangerous and impious manner; for he attributes to him a Glory inferiour to that of the Fa­ther and the Son. — Yet he was Catechist of Alexandria, under the Pa­triarch Theonas, who was Consecrated in the Year 282.

Pamphilius being dead, as has been said, Eusebius retired to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, his Friend; where he was Witness, as he tells us L. 8. c. 6. himself, of several Martyrdoms, the History of which he has left us, in his Book of the Martyrs of Palestine. From thence he went into Egypt, where he found the Persecution yet more violent, and where he was thrown into Prison. But this Per­secution having ceased, he was set at liberty, and a while after elected Bishop of Caesarea, after the Death of Agapius. It's not cer­tainly [Page 67]known in what Year this Election was made, but at least, he was already Bishop, when Paulinus dedicated a stately Church in the City of Tyre, which he had built there, which was in the Year 316, in the 10th. of Year Constantine's Reign; for it was the Custom of the Christians, Ant. Pagi Diss. Hypat. par. 2. c. 3. n. 12, 13. as well as of the Pagans, to Consecrate their Churches in the time of the Decennales of the Empe­rors, or of any other Solemnity. Eusebius recites a fine Oration, spoken at this Dedi­cation; L. 10. c. 4. and though he does not say, that it was he himself that spoke it, yet the Stile of this Oration, and the modest Manner after which he mentions him that made it, gives one reason to believe, that he has sup­prest his Name only through Modesty. One might imagine, that he was then but Priest, were it not manifest, that it was very rare, in that Age, for Priests to speak in publick, where there were Bishops pre­sent.

It was about this time, that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria had a bickering with one of his Priests named Arius, touching the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which gave birth to Arianism. Eusebius having had a great share in the Disputes of Arianism, we cannot recount his Life, without writing the History of it: And to know wherein consisted these Disputes, we must necessa­rily [Page 68]ascend higher, and enquire what Prin­ciples of Philosophy were in use in that time among the Christians, and how they came to be introduced. This is so necessary a Digression, as will appear in the Sequel, that it's to be supposed the Reader must ap­prove of it.

There was never any Philosopher that made himself so Famous as Plato, and no Books read with more Pleasure than his, whether from the Subjects, and lofty Thoughts found therein, or by reason of the Elegancy and Nobleness of their Style, which never any Philosopher could equalize. He was born under the Reign of Artaxerxes, sirnam'd Long-hand, Four hun­dred twenty six Years before Christ, and died aged Fourscore Years, in the time when Philip of Macedon made himself to be fear'd of all Greece. Alexander his Son having made himself Master of Asia, which his Successors divided among them; one may reasonably believe, that the Sciences of the Greeks there, establish'd themselves with their Empire, and their Customs.

Ptolemy the Son of Lagus, one of Alex­ander's Successors, undertook to collect into his Library of Alexandria all the Books he could find, and drew thither several Learned Men of Greece. Vid. Hody de LXX. Int. c. 9. He was Learned himself, and omitted nothing, [Page 69]for the inspiring into his Sons the love of Learning.

His Son Philadelphus march'd, in this respect, in his Father's steps, as all those who have any knowledge in the History of this Prince, do well know. The Syrian Monarchs seem likewise to have cultivated the Sciences; seeing that Suidas relates, that Euphorion of Chalcis in Eubea, Poet and Philosopher, was Library-keeper of An­tiochus the Great, Two hundred Years be­fore our Saviour's time. Plato was too famous then, and his Works in too great esteem, not to have had place in these Libra­ries. One may also believe, that Asia, which was then full of Greek Philosophers, wanted not Platonists.

Among the Opinions of Plato, there are not any more remarkable, than those which he had touching the Divinity, the Prae­existence and Immortality of the Soul. He held that there is only One Supreme, Spi­ritual and Invisible God, whom he calls The Being, or, The Being it Self, The Very Being, The Father and Cause of all Beings, &c. He placed under this Supreme God an In­ferior Being, which he calls Reason ( [...]) The Director of Things Present and Future, the Creator of the Ʋniverse, &c. In fine, he acknowledg'd a Third Being, which he calls the Spirit or Soul of the World. He [Page 70]added, That the First was the Father of the Second, and the Second had produced the Third. We may consult hereupon his Timoeus, to which we should adjoyn his II, and VI. Letter. In the second, which is directed to Dionysius, who complained, that Plato had not sufficiently instructed him touching the First Nature, or First Being, this Philopher thus expresses him­self: Every thing is about the King of all things, and every thing is because of Him: He is the cause of all good things: The things of the Second Order, are about the Second: the things of the Third are about the Third. He calls this a Riddle; forbids Dionysius to speak of it before the Ignorant; enjoyns him to burn his Letter as soon as he has read it, and protests he will never write again of this Matter. In his Sixth Letter, he enjoyns Hermias, Erastus and Corisca to swear, in taking to witness, The God who is the Director of things pre­sent and future; and the Lord, who is the Father of this Director, and of this Cause. The Obscurity which he affects in this oc­casion, lest he should draw on him the Rage of the Superstitious Populace, hinders us from understanding what he would say; unless we collate together all the Passages wherein he speaks of the Divinity, and con­sult his Interpreters and Disciples. [Page 71]Here's how one of 'em Hierocles de Provid. apud Pho­tium. Cod. CCLI. explains his Master's meaning: Plato believed, That God the Creator sustains the Visible and Invisible World, which was made out of Nothing; That his Will suffices to make Beings exist; That by the Conjunction of a Corporal Nature, and another Incor­poreal, he has made a most Perfect World, which is Double and Single at the same time, in which one may distinguish the High, the Middle, and the Low; That he calls High, the Heavenly Beings, and the Gods; the Middle, the Aetherial In­telligences, and Good Daemons, which are the Interpreters and Messengers in what relates to the Good of Men; The Low, the Terrestrial Intelligences, and the Souls of Men, or Men Immortal; That the Superior Beings govern the Infe­rior; but, that God, who is the Creator and Father of 'em, Reigns over All; and, That this Paternal Empire is nothing else but his Providence, by which he gives to every sort of Being what belongs to it. — We may hereby understand what Plato calls the things of the Second and Third Order. We shall not busie our selves in seek­ing from whom Plato might have learn'd this Doctrine, whether from the Chaldeans, or from the Old Testament, as some of the Fathers have believed.

Although Plato's Disciples are agreed with their Master, in respect of these Three Principles; yet there is to be found in their Writings divers Enquiries touching their Nature, and divers Ways of Speaking, which are not to be seen in those of this Philoso­pher, who never dared to write all he thought on this Subject. Plotinus particu­larly, who liv'd in the Beginning of the Third Century, has treated of thein in se­veral places of his Praeser­tim En. V. l. 1. a. c. 3. ad 8. Enneades, but espe­cially in the Book which is entitled, Of the Three Hypostases, which are the Three Prin­ciples of all things. Here's whereunto his Doctrine may be reduced.

1st. There are Three Principles: the Being, the Spirit, or the Reason of the Being; and the Soul of the World, which is the Reason of the Spirit. There is also, ac­cording to him, a Reason of the Soul of the World; but it is Reason obscure ( [...].)

2dly. The Being has begotten the Rea­son; not by an Act of his Will, or by a Decree, but by his Nature; as Fire begets Heat, or as the Sun produces Light. The Reason has also begotten the Soul of the World, and perhaps termed Father in this respect.

3dly. These Three Hypostases differ in Number, although there be a most strict Union between them; which makes, that [Page 73]one may say at the same time, that they are different, and that they are the same thing. The First is more Excellent than the Se­cond, and the Second more Excellent than the Third.

4thly. The Terms which Plotinus uses, are worth observing.

1. He calls not only Essence ( [...]) after Plato, the Nature of the Being, of the Reason, and of the Soul of the World; but he likewise uses the word ( [...]) Mat­ter; and says, that the Matter of the one is more perfect than that of the other. Ha­ving pretended that Parmenides had said before Plato, that there are Three Princi­ples; he expresses himself in these terms; Parmenides holds likewise the Opinion of the Three Natures.

2. It's observable, that the word Hypo­stasis ( [...]) signifies two things, with this Philosopher; first, the Existence of a thing, considered abstractedly; and in the second place, the thing it self which exists, as it's taken in the Title of this Book, of the Three Hypostases, which are the Principles of all things, [...], and in the Title of the Third Book of the same Enneade, of Intelligent Beings.

3. As he says, That the Reason is the Father of the Soul; he says likewise, That the Reason begets and makes the Soul. For [Page 74]we must observe, that in this matter, Plato and his Disciples use indifferently the words, to Beget, to Make, to Produce, &c. and that Begotten and Made, is the same thing here, in their mouths. We need only read Plato's Timoeus.

4. Plotinus says, That the Father and the Reason are one and the same thing ( [...]) because they coexist and forsake not one ano­ther. He says, that the Supreme Being, and whose Essence consists in Existing, in a manner wholly particular, has begotten by his Nature the Spirit; and that he can­not be without him, no more than a Lu­minous Body can be without Light.

The Spirit on his part, whose Essence consists in having perpetually a lively con­ception of the Being, cannot exist ( [...]) without this. They cannot be separated ( [...]) one from the other, because there is nothing between them, as there is nothing between the Spirit and the Soul.

5. He says, That that which is begotten, resembles ( [...]) its Cause, just as the Light resembles the Sun.

6. He says, That the Spirit is the Image ( [...]) of the Being, as the Soul is the Image of the Spirit.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Eighth Book against Julian, cites a Passage of Por­phyry, out of his Third Book of the Philo­sophical [Page 75]History, whence it appears, that the Platonists disputed among themselves, whether there could be more than Three Hypostases in the Divinity: Plato (saith Porphyry) has taught, That the Divine Essence may extend it self even to Three Hypostases; to wit, the Supreme Divi­nity, or the Good it self; after it, the Creator, who is the Second; and the Soul of the World, which is the Third, &c. But there are Men who pretend, that we must not reckon the very Good, or Good it self, among the things which he has pro­duced; and that being of a perfect Sim­plicity, and incapable of Accidents, he has Communion with nothing: so that it is by the Spirit that we must begin to reckon the Trinity [...].

However, Porphyry's Master, whom we have already cited, seems Ennead. V. lib. 8. cap. 12. to say, that there may be more than Three Hypostases, in these remarkable words:

God has begotten an excellent Being, and has brought forth all things in Him. This Production has cost him no Pain; for pleasing himself in what he begat, and finding his Productions good, he has re­tained them all in Himself, tempering his Brightness and theirs. Those which have there remain'd being more excellent, there's only his only Son ( [...]) Jupiter [Page 76]who has appear'd without, by whom, as by the Supreme Son of the Divinity, and as in an Image, one may see what the Fa­ther is, and the Brethren which have re­main'd in the Father, [...].

The Platonists likewise used, in speaking of the Union which they conceiv'd to be between the different Orders of their Divi­nities, the terms of ( [...]) of different Essence; and ( [...]) Co-essential. By the first, they denote the different sorts of Beings; and by the second, what is of the same kind. Here's a Proof taken out of Jamblichus, in his Book of the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Sect. 1. ch. 19. He speaks of the Manner after which the Superior Gods are united to the Inferior, according to the Platonick Philosophy: The Divi­nities (says he) of the Second Order turn­ing themselves towards the First Intel­lectual Beings, and the First giving to the Second the same Essence ( [...]) and the same Power; this entertains their Union. What we call Union in the things which are of different Kinds ( [...]) as the Soul and the Body, or which are divers Species ( [...]) as Material things, or which are otherwise divided; this Union, I say, happens to 'em from Superior things, and destroys it self at a certain time. But the more we elevate [Page 77]our selves to Superior things, and to the Identity ( [...]) of the First Beings, and in regard of the Species, and in re­gard of the Essence; when we ascend from the Parts to the Whole, the more we ac­knowledge the Union ( [...]) which is Eternal, and the more we see what is the Union properly so called, and the Model whereon all the rest have been form'd, and that it hath about it, and in it self, the Diversity ( [...]) and the Mul­tiplicity.

Porphyry had ask'd, Whether a kind of Being is form'd ( [...]) mixt with our Soul and Divine Inspiration, which made the Prophets able to foresee the Future. §. 3. c. 21. Jamblichus answer'd, No: and gives this Reason for it; which is, That when One thing is form'd of Two, the Whole is of one and the same Species, of the same Na­ture, and Co-essential ( [...],) and that this does not happen in the case proposed by Porphyry.

One may see hereby the Subtilty with which the Platonists handled these Matters, and the Terms they used. But we should take notice of two things, in endeavouring to form to our selves an Idea of their Senti­ments. The first, That we must not al­ways suppose they had a clear and distinct Knowledge of what they would say them­selves, [Page 78]and that they saw all the Conse­quences of their Opinions: So that it would be perhaps in vain, to endeavour to draw out of their Writings a clear Idea of their Sentiment, touching the Three Prin­ciples of all things; because, perhaps they themselves conceiv'd not clearly what they said; at least, their Style is so different on this occasion, from that which is observable in the Passages of their Writings, wherein they speak of things which they may know, that it is apparent, they contain'd not the subject of the Three Principles, like an infi­nite of others, which they have known how to express in an even, clear and ele­gant manner.

The Second thing we should observe, is, That in so difficult a Matter, we must con­tent our selves with what they say posi­tively, without attempting to draw far­fetch'd Consequences from their Principles, which we cannot understand but by halves; otherwise we are in danger of attributing to them such Notions as they never had. Neither must we endeavour to reconcile, in so abstracted a Subject, the Contradictions which seem to appear in their Doctrine; nor conclude, that they could not mean things in such a manner, because then they must contradict themselves. It was the Custom of these Philosophers, to affect cer­tain [Page 79]apparent Contradictions, in using the same Terms in divers Sences. Besides, its obvious enough to imagine, that they may have sometimes contradicted themselves, on a Subject whereof they had no distinct Idea.

These two Remarks were necessary, to prevent the Questions which might be of­fer'd on these Matters; and to shew, that in writing the History of these Doctrines, one should keep wholly to Facts, and the Terms of the Authors we treat of.

A Second Opinion of the Platonists, which has made a great noise in the World, is that of the Prae-existence of Souls, in places above the Moon, See Pla­to's Timoens. of the Faults which they may have there committed; of their banishments from these happy Abodes, to come to inhabit in differently disposed Bo­dies, according to the different Merits of these Souls; in fine, of their return into places whence they drew their Original. We shall not trouble our selves to explain this Doctrine, because it belongs not to the Relation in hand; having only made men­tion of it, for a particular Reason which will appear in its place.

The Kings of Egypt and Syria, having carried the Sciences of the Greeks into Asia, the Jews, who were in great numbers in these two Kingdoms, and who were obliged [Page 80]to converse with them, learn'd of them their Opinions; and made no difficulty of embracing those, which did not appear to 'em contrary to their Religion. Their Books containing nothing inconsistent with sundry of the Platonick Doctrines; they be­lieved therefore that these Doctrines might be true, and receiv'd them so much the more easily, in that they thought they might hereby defend their Religion against the Pagans, and make them relish it the better. Plato every where affirm'd the Unity of the Supreme Being, yet without denying that there are other Beings which may be called Gods, to wit, the Angels, which is agreeable to the Expressions of the Old Testament. And this is apparently one of the things which made the Jews bet­ter relish the Opinions of this Philoso­pher.

But we should give some particular Proofs of this: The Author of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, was plainly of the Opi­nion of the Prae-existence of Souls, as it ap­pears from these words of chap. 8. ver. 19, 20. For I was a witty Child, and had a good Spirit: Yea, rather, being good, I came into a Body undefiled. The same Author has used the word ( [...]) Reason, in some places, where Plato would have used it, were he to have said the same thing. Thus [Page 81]in chap. 18. ver. 15, 16. in speaking of the Deliverer of the Israelites, he says, Thy Almighty Reason descended from Heaven, out of thy Royal Throne, as a fierce Man of War into the midst of a Land of Destruction, and brought thine unfeigned Commandment, as a sharp Sword; and standing up, fill'd all things with Death; and it touched the Heaven, but it stood upon the Earth. In chap. 9. ver. 1. he says, That God has made all things by his Rea­son. It cannot be alledg'd, that he has been the only one of the Jews that has spoke in this manner; seeing that Philo, who liv'd a little while after Our Saviour, is full of the like Expres­sions; as several of the Learned have observed. Its known that this Author has so well imitated Plato, that he has been call'd the Jewish Plato. He be­liev'd that there was One only Su­preme God, as all the rest of the Jews do, whom he calls TO ON, the Being through Excellency. But he further ac­knowledg'd a Divine Nature, which he calls ΛΟΓΟΣ, the Reason; as well as Plato: And another whom he calls likewise the Soul of the World. His Writings are so full of these manner of speaking, that there is no nead of of­fering Vid. De­fens. Fid. Nicen. §. 1. c. 1. & §. 16, 17. Instances.

The Jews were of these Opinions when Our Saviour and his Apostles came into the World: And this is per­haps the Reason why we find, accor­dingly as it has been observed by se­veral learned Men, several Platonick Phrases in the New Testament, espe­cially in the Gospel of St. John.

It's well known, that Amelius the Platonick Philosopher, having read the beginning of this Gospel, remarked, that this Apostle spake like Plato. In effect, this Philosopher might have said, according to his Principles, The Reason was in the beginning with God. She it is who hath made all things, who is Life, and the Light of Men, &c. We find several Passages in Philo, like to this. This Jewish Philosopher calls Reason, the Priest, the Mediator be­tween God and Men, the Eldest Son of God, &c. Wherein it is observable, that he mixes his Jewish Notions, with the manners of Speaking of Plato. He has likewise used in one place, the term Paraclete De Vit. Mos. p. 521. Edit. Gen. Graeco-Lat., Intercessor, in speak­ing of the Reason: It was necessary (said he) that the High-Priest who is to offer Sacrifices to the Father of the World, should have for Intercessor — him of his Sons, whose Vertue is the [Page 83]most perfect, for to obtain the Pardon of Sins, and abundant Graces. He had said, Quod Det. Pot. Insid. p. 137. that Moses denoted by the Manna, and by the Rock of the Desart, the same Reason: The Prophet (says he) calls elsewhere this Rock, Manna; a name which signifies the same thing, to wit, the Divine Reason, the most An­cient of Beings. Our Saviour Christ calls him­self, Paraclete, in St. John, chap. 14.16. when he promises his Apostles to send them another Paraclete. He says likewise, that he is the True Bread, in opposition to the Manna, which could be no more than a Shadow of it. And St. Paul says, that the Stone of the De­sart, was Christ, 1 Cor. 10.4. These ways of speaking which are found, in St. John, to be the True Bread, the True Vine; and which denote, that he to whom they are applied, is able to produce in Mens Spirits as much Efficacy, in another kind of things, as the Bread and Wine produce in the Body: These ways of speaking, I say, were particular to the Platonists, as has been observed else­where.

We might give several other Examples of Platonick Phrases, to be met with in the New Testament: But it will be sufficient to remark here, That the Apostles apply to our Saviour Christ, Passages of the Old Testament, which Philo had applied to the Reason; and that this Jewish Philo­sopher [Page 84]has given to this same Reason most of the Titles which the Apostles have given to Jesus Christ.

The Pagans, who had then embraced the Gospel, and who were in some measure vers'd in the Heathen Philosophy, remark­ing this resemblance of Terms, persuaded themselves that the Apostles believ'd the same things, in respect of these Matters, as the Platonick Jews and Pagans. And this seems to be that which drew several Philo­sophers of this Sect into the Christian Re­ligion, and giv'n such a great Esteem to the Primitive Christians, for Plato. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says, ‘ Pag. 48. Edit. Col. An. 1686. That Jesus Christ was known in part by So­crates; for the Reason was and is still the same which is in every Man: It is She that has foretold the Future by the Pro­phets; and who being become subject to the same Infirmities as we, has instructed us by her self. —’ He says more­over, Pag. 51. [...]sd. edit. That the Opinions of Plato, are not remote from those of Jesus Christ. And this has made likewise St. Augustine to say, That if the ancient Platonists were such as they were described, and were to rise again, they would freely embrace Chri­stianity, in changing De. Ver. Rel. c. 3. Vid. & Ep. LVI. some few Words and Opinions, — which most of the late Platonists, and those of his time had done: [Page 85] Paucis mutatis verbis atque sententiis, Chri­stiani fierent, sicut plerique recentiorum, nostrorumque temporum Platonici fecerunt.

Tertullian affirms, in his Apology, Cap. XXL That when the Christians say, That God has made the Universe by his Word, by his Reason, and by his Power; they speak only after the sage Heathens, who tell us, That God has made the World by his ( [...]) Word, or Reason.

Clemens Alexandrinus has likewise be­liev'd that Plato held the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity (as I have observed in the Life of that Father.)

Origen against Celsus, does not deny, but that Plato spake the truth, in speaking of Lib. 6. pag. 270, & 280. God, and of his Son: He only main­tains, that he did not make such a just Use as he ought of his Knowledge. He does not say, that the Foundation of the Chri­stian Doctrine is different in this from that of Plato, but that this Philosopher had learn'd it from the Jews.

Constantine, in his Harangue to the Cap. IX. Saints, after having prais'd Plato, in that he was the first Philosopher who brought Men to the Contemplation of Intellectual Things, thus goes on: He has spoken of a First God, who is above all Essences, wherein he has done well. He has like­wise submitted to him a Second, and has [Page 86]distinguisht Two Essences in number, ( [...],) the Per­fection of the one being the same as that of the other; and the Essence of the Second God taking his Existence from the First. For it is He who is the Author and the Director of all things, being Above All. He that is after him, having executed his Orders, attributes to Him, as to the Supreme Cause, the Production of the Universe. There is then but One, to speak properly, who takes care to pro­vider for All, to wit, the Reason, who is God, and who has set all things in their Order. This Reason being God, is like­wise the Son of God; for who can call [...] otherwise; without committing a great Fault? He that is the Father of all things, is justly said to be the Father of his own proper Reason. HITHERTO [...] TO HAS SPOKE LIKE A WISE MAN. ( [...],) but he has varied from the Truth, in introducing a multiplicity of Gods, and in giving to each of 'em his Form. — We might cite several other such like Passages, whereby one might see, that several among the Fathers of the first three Centuries, have believ'd that the Opi­nion of Plato, and that of the Apostles, was the same.

If we consider, that the Question here, is about things of which we have naturally no Idea; and which is even Incomprehen­sible, supposing Revelation; and of which one can only speak in metaphorical and im­proper Language, it will then appear to us no wonder, if since the Apostles times, there have arose several Opinions on this Subject. Thus the Ebionites are charged to have denied the Pre-existence of Our Sa­viour's Divinity, and to have held that he was only a meer Man. These Ebionites have remain'd a long time, seeing that not only Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus do men­tion them, but St. Jerom seems to take no­tice that they were in his time. It's affirm'd, That Artemon, under the Emperor Severus, and Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch, under the Emperor Aurelius, maintain'd the same Opinions.

Cerinthus, on the contrary, held the Pre-existence of the Reason, which he call'd the Christ; and affirm'd, that she had descended on Jesus, in the form of a Dove, when he was Baptiz'd; and that she ascended up into Heaven, when he was Crucify'd. It is indeed very difficult to affirm, that this was precisely the Opinions of these Here­ticks, because we have nothing remaining to us of them, and that we cannot fully trust those who speak of 'em only with de­testation, [Page 88]seeing it might easily be, that their great Zeal has hindred them from well comprehending them. And this is a Re­mark which we must make, in respect of all the Ancient Hereticks, whose Opinions are denoted to us only from the Writings of their Adversaries.

About the Middle of the Third Century, Sabellius of Ptolemaïs in Lybia, produced a new Opinion, which was condemned in Egypt, and afterwards every where. He was charg'd with Synod. Const. ap. Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Da­mas is a­pud eun­dem, c. 11. confounding the Hypo­stases, and for denying the Properties which distinguish the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost; and for having said, That the Father is the same as the Son. Whereas Plato and his Followers reckon'd Three Numerical Essences. It seems, that Sabellius would acknowledge but One, whom he call'd the Father, the Son, or Holy Spirit, in divers regards. It's said that some others had maintain'd the same thing before and after him, as Noet and Beryllus of Botsra.

A while after Sabellius, appear'd Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch, who was (as we have said) of the Ebionites Sentiment, in relation to our Saviour's Divinity. Al­though the word [...] had been used in the Platonick Philosophy, to signifie what is of the same kind, as has been observ'd already, (and as may be seen [Page 89]in Bull's Defence of the Nicene Council, §. 2. chap. 1.) Yet the Council which met at Antioch, to Condemn Paul of Samosotia, Condemn'd likewise this Term. But its hard to find in what sence it was taken, because the Acts of this Coun­cil are lost, and we know nothing of them, but by what St. Athanasius, Vid. Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. §. 2. c. 1. & §. 10, & seq. and some others extremely interessed to up­hold this word, have said in their Dis­putes against the Arians. If we believe them, the Fathers of the Council of Antioch said, that the Father and the Son were not consubstantial, in the same sence wherein we say that two pieces of Money made of the same Metal are consubstantial, because that these pieces suppose a pre-existent Matter, of which they have been form'd: Whereas the Father and the Son do not suppose the like substance. Paulus Samosatenus said, that if the Son had not been made God, we must suppose that he is of the same kind of Essence as that of the Father; and that thus there must have been an an­terior substance to the one and to the other, of which they must have been form'd. St. Athanasius assures us, In lib. de Syn. Arim. & Seleu. Tom. 1. p. 919, & seq. that the term of Homoousios was condemn'd at Antioch, in as much only as it might include the Idea of a Matter anterior to things which we call Coessentials.

These are the chief Heretical Opinions touching the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which appear'd before the Council of Nice. As for the Fathers, which are respected as Or­thodox, they have not varied from the Ex­pressions of the Platonists; and as these have sometimes said, that the Reason is different from the Supreme Being; and sometimes, that they are both one. The Fathers have exprest themselves in the same terms. The Platonists have said, That the Father could not be without the Son, nor the Son without the Father; as the Light could not be without the Sun, nor the Sun without Light: And the Fa­thers have said the same thing. Both one and the other have acknowledged that the Reason has existed before the World, and that she has produced it; and as Plato speaks in his Timaeus, and Plotinus in his Enneades, of the Generation of Reason, as if the Good it self had produced it, to create and govern the World: So the Fathers have said, that the Son hath proceeded in some manner from the Father, before the Crea­tion of the World, to manifest himself to Men by his Production; and that hence it is that the Scripture calls him the Son of God, and his First-born.

Sometimes they say there was a time in which the Son was not; sometimes, that he [Page 91]was from Everlasting as well as the Father; sometimes they affirm they are Equal; and elsewhere they say the Father is Greatest. Some of them believe that the Father and Son are two Hypostases, two Natures, two Es­sences, as appears from the passage of Pie­rius, related by Cod. CXIX. Photius; others deny it. To bring Instances of all this, would be too great an Enlargement for this place; and there being enough to be seen in Bull's Book which we have already cited.

If it be demanded at present, what Idea's they fix'd to these Expressions; it cannot be affirm'd that they have been clear. First, Because whatever Endeavours are used to understand what they say, a Man can get no distinct Notion thereof. And, Secondly, Because they acknowledge them­selves, that it is a thing Incomprehensible. All that can be done on this occasion, is to relate the Terms which they have used, to the end that it may be seen how they have heretofore exprest themselves on this Mat­ter. However, learned Men have given themselves a great deal of trouble to ex­plain the Passages of the Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice, without consi­dering, that all their Explications are fruit­less; seeing the Fathers, in acknowledging, that what they said was Incomprehensible, acknowledg'd at the same time, that they [Page 92]fix'd no Idea on the Terms they used, un­less such as were general and confused.

Had the Matter staid here, there had never been such great Disputes on the Sen­timents of the Antients, touching this My­stery; seeing the Dispute doth not so much lie on the Terms they have used, as the Idea's they have fasten'd to them, which cannot be reduced to any thing that is clear. Sometimes they use Terms which seem per­fectly to agree with those which have been used since; but there is found in some other places of their Works, Expressions which seem to overthrow what they had said; so that one cannot form any Notion of what they thought.

Lactantius, for Example, answers thus to the Heathens, who ask'd the Christians, how they said they acknowledged but One God, seeing they gave this Name to the Father, and to the Son? Instit. l. 4. c. 29. p. 403. Ed. Oxon. When we call the Father God, and the Son God, we do not say that each of them is a different God: And we do not separate them; because the Father cannot be without the Son, nor the Son separated from the Fa­ther: He cannot be called Father, with­out his Son; nor the Son be begotten, without his Father. Seeing then that the Father makes the Son, and that the Son is made, the one and the other has the same [Page 93]Intellect, One only Spirit, and One only Substance; ƲNA ƲTRIQƲE MENS, ƲNƲS SPIRITƲS, ƲNA SƲBSTAN­TIA. — These are Words which seem to be decisive; and had Lactantius held to these Expressions, he had never been accu­sed of Heterodoxy: But if he be question'd what he means by the word Ʋnus, whether it be a Numerical Ʋnity, or an Ʋnity of Con­sent and Resemblance, he will appear deter­min'd to this latter sence: Ib. p. 104. When any one (says he) has a Son whom he dearly loves, and who dwells in the House, and under the governing Power of his Father, although the Father grants him the Name and Authority of a Master; yet, in the terms of Civilians, here is but one House, and one Master. So this World is but one House belonging to God; and the Son and the Father who inhabit the World, and who are of one Mind (Ʋnanimes) are One only God; the One being as the Two, and the Two as the One. And this ought not to appear strange, seeing the Son is in the Father; because the Fa­ther loveth the Son, and the Father is in the Son, by reason of his faithful Resig­nation to his Father's Will; and that he does nothing, nor never did do any thing, unless what the Father has will'd, or com­manded him. — We may read further, [Page 94]the 6th. Chap. of the 4th. Book, which be­gins thus; God, who has conceived and produced all Things, before he began this curious Work of the World, begat a Spirit Holy and Incorruptible, that he might call him his Son. Although he has produced infinite others, whom we call Angels, for his Ministry; yet he has vouchsafed to give the Name of Son to his First-born, who is cloathed with the Vertue and Majesty of his Father. — That which is particular in this, is, That though Lactantius says, That the Son is Co-eternal with the Father; yet he says, there was a time when he was not: L. 2. c. 9. in Ed. Be­tuleii. Sicut mater sine exemplo genuit auctorem suum; sic ineffabiliter Pater genuisse credendus est Co-aeternum. De Matre natus est qui ante jam fuit; de Patre qui aliquando non fuit. Hoc fides credat, intelligentia non requirat, ne aut non inventum putet incredibile, aut repertum non credat singulare. It's true, this Passage is not to be found in some Ma­nuscripts; and that several learned Men have fancy'd that some fly Heretick has corrupted Lactantius's Works: But in other places, wherein all the Manuscripts do agree, Lactantius expresses himself after the same manner: And it may be replied, with as much likelyhood, that it has been the Orthodox Revisors who have cut off what [Page 95]they thought not fit to be made pub­lick.

Lactantius has been long since charg'd with Heterodoxy; but in this respect, he has been no more faulty than other Fathers, who liv'd before the Council of Nice, whose Expressions are as different as those of the Platonists, in matter of the Trinity. And this has made Father Peteau and Mr. Huet to charge them with favouring the Arian Senti­ments; whil'st other learned Men have main­tain'd that they have been far from them. Each of them cites his Passages; which ex­amin'd apart, seem to decide for him: But when one comes to compare these Passages with one another, it cannot be compre­hended how the same Persons could speak so differently. In this comparison, their Expressions are found so obscure, and so full of apparent Contradictions, or real ones, that a Man feels himself obliged to believe that the Fathers had done a great deal bet­ter in keeping themselves to the Terms of the Apostles; and to have acknowledged, that they understood them not, than to throw themselves into such Labyrinths, by endeavouring to explain them.

To shew further, That the Expressions of the Fathers are only fit to produce con­fused Notions, and such as are contrary to those which all Christians at this day hold; [Page 96]we need only read Tertullian, who having said, in his Apology, chap. 21. That the Na­ture of Reason is Spiritual; adds, Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, & prolatione Gene­ratum, & idciro Filium, & Deum dictum ex unitate substantiae, nam & Deus Spiritus est. But what means Prolatione Genitus? The Terms of Ʋnity of Substance, may sig­nifie, not only of the same Substance in Number, but moreover, of a like Substance, that is to say, spiritually and equally per­fect. And what he adds, seems to favour this last sence; Etiam cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa, sed Sol erit in radio, quia Solis est radius; nec separatur substantia, sed extenditur. The Substance of a Ray, after what manner soever we conceive it, is not the same in Number as that of the Sun: And Tertullian says, that it is the same of the Son; Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, & de Deo Deus; Thus a Spirit is born of a Spirit, and a God of a God. Ʋt Lumen de lumine accenditur, manet in­tegra, & indefecta materiae matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatum mutueris; As when we light one Torch by another, the Light which has lighted the other, re­mains entire, and without being wasted, although we light several Torches, who have the same qualities. Ita & quod de Deo profectum est, Deus est, & Dei Filius [Page 97]& unus ambo. Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, & de Deo Deus modulo alternum numerum gradu, non statu fecit, & à matrice non recessit, sed excessit; So what proceeds from God, is God, and Son of God, and both are but one; so the Spirit which is born of a Spi­rit, and the God who is born of a God, makes Two, in respect of Degree, but not in respect of his State; he has not been se­parated from the Womb, or from his Ori­ginal, but is gone out of it.

These Words of Tertullian do not appear at first sight agreeable with Arius's Opinion; but at most, they contain nothing that is clear; for one might have demanded of Tertullian, whether by this Prolation he speaks of, the Reason has existed as Light from a Torch, lighted by another Torch, exists as soon as it is lighted? Should he allow it, he might have been told, that to speak strictly, there must have been Two Gods; seeing that, in fine, two Spirits, though exactly equal, and strictly united, are two Spirits. If this be so, the second Spirit being not form'd of the same Nume­rical Substance, as that of the first, one might say with Arius, that he has been extracted from nothing; and there would be in this regard, nothing but a Dispute about Words, between Arius and Tertul­lian. But if it be answer'd for Tertullian, [Page 98]That his Comparison is not good; it will be ask'd, Why he made use of a Compa­rison which may lead into Error, especially having said before, that he was of Plato's Opinion touching the Reason? If he meant, that the Father has produced in his proper Substance, without multiplying it, a Modification, in respect of which, one may call the Substance of the Father, Son; why does he say, Spiritus ex Spiritu, ex Deo, Deus? For, to speak properly, the Father has produced neither a Spirit, nor a God, but a new manner of Being in his pro­per Substance.

It is further to be observed, That this Comparison is not of Tertullian alone, but of Justin Martyr, and a great number of Fathers besides, before and after the Coun­cil of Nice; and that there is no Passage which appears of greater force than that, yet the Equivocation of it is apparent.

The Fathers have likewise used the term Hypostasis, as well as the Platonists, in two sences; sometimes for the Existence taken in an abstracted manner, and sometimes for the thing it self, which exists. The Equi­vocation of this Term, and that of the Words, One and Many, which (as has been shew'd) are taken sometimes from the Unity, and the Plurality Specificials; and sometimes from the Unity and Plurality [Page 99] Numericals, have caus'd great Controver­sies among the Fathers, as divers learned Men have Petavius, Curcellaeus, Huetius, &c. observed. But it is sit we should take notice of one thing, which is, that Bull, who has writ prolixly on this Matter, has not a word of the Numerical and Specifick Ʋnity; without which, a Man cannot comprehend what the Fathers mean, nor draw any Conclusions from them against the Hereticks. Yet when they say there are three Hypostases, or three Essences, or three Natures, he constantly takes it as if they said, there are three Modifications in one only Numerical Essence. He sup­poses, that the [...] Essence, and [...] Nature, signifie Manners of Existing of one Numerical Essence, only because that with­out this, those who have thus spoken of it, would not have been Orthodox, or of the Opinion at present receiv'd, which the Council must have approv'd of, seeing otherwise it would not have been admitted as it is. He supposes, on the contrary, for the same Reasons, that when the Fathers deny there are Three Hypostases, they do not barely mean, that there are not Three Essences of different Kinds, but that they are not Three in Number. But others will deny there is any place, where the words Nature and Essence can be taken for what we at this day call Personality, which is to [Page 100]say, for a Modification; and that it appears from the Passages which he cites, that the Fathers held the Numerical Ʋnity.

And this was the Condition of the Chri­stian Church, when the Quarrels of Arius disturb'd it. Whence may be seen, that it was no hard matter for the two Parties to cite Authorities of the Antients, whose Equivocal Expressions might be interpreted in divers sences. The Obscurity of the Subject, the vain Subtilty of Humane Un­derstanding, which would know every thing, the Desire of appearing able, and the Passion which mingles it self in all Dis­putes, gave Birth to these Controversies, which for a long time tore Christianity into pieces.

Arius being a Priest of Alexandria, about the Year 318, undertook, as it seems, to explain more clearly the Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which had been till that time taught in the Christian Church, under the Veil of those Terms which we have recited. He said, that to beget, in this subject, was nothing else but to pro­duce: whence he concluded, that the Divi­nity of Jesus Christ had been extracted out of nothing by the Father. Here's how he expresses himself, in a Letter which he wrote to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia: Ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 5. We make profession to believe, that the [Page 101] Son is not without Generation, and that he is not a part of that which is unbegot­ten, nor of any other Pre-existent Matter whatever; but that by the Will and Coun­cil (of God) he has been perfect God ( [...],) before all Time and Ages; that he is his only Son, and that he is not subject to change; that before he was be­gotten or created, he was not.— Arius was counted an able Sozom. l. 1. c. 15. Logician, and was in good esteem with his Bishop Alex­ander; but speaking freely his mind, he drew on him the harred of one Epiphan. in Haer. LXIX. Melece. Bishop in Thebais, who had caus'd a Schism in Egypt, although he did not much vary from the common Opinions, only because he would not receive into Communion the Priests who had faln in the Dioclesian Perse­cution, but after a long Penance, and would have them for ever depriv'd of their Office.

One may see the History of this in St. Epiphanius, who accuses him for having ( [...]) an affected Devotion, and taking up a particular way of living, to to make himself admired by the People. Arius had moreover another Enemy, named Alexander, and Sirnamed Baucalas Philost. l. 1. c. 4., who was also an Associate Priest with him. He joined himself to Melece, to complain to the Bishop of Alexandria, that Arius sowed a new Doctrine touching the Divinity of [Page 102]our Saviour Christ. He could the better spread his Opinions, in that having a parti­cular Church at Alexandria committed Epiph. to his care, he preach'd there what he thought fit. He drew such a great number of People into his Opinions, that there were Seven hundred Religious Votaries who had embraced them, and consequently a greater number among the Ordinary People. It's said, that he was a Man of large Shape, of a severe Countenance, yet of a very agree­able Conversation.

Sozom. Alexander thought, that in a Matter wherein one might easily equivocate, it were best to let the two Parties explain themselves, to the end it might appear, that he had accorded them more by Persua­sion than Force. He brought the two Par­ties to a Conference, in demanding of them the Explication of a Passage of Scripture, in the Presence of the Clergy of his Church: But neither one nor the other of these Par­ties would yield, endeavouring only to vanquish. Arius his Adversaries main­tained, that the Son is of the same Essence ( [...]) as the Father, and that he is Eternal as he is; and Arius pretended that the Generation denoted a Beginning. There was another Meeting call'd, as fruitless as the first, in respect of the Dispute; but by which, it seems, Alexander, who had be­fore [Page 103]not any precise determined Sentiment on this Matter, was induced to embrace the Opinion of Arius his Adversaries. He af­terwards commanded this Priest to believe the same thing ( [...]) and to abandon the opposite Opinion.

But it being seldom known that Men yield Obedience to these kind of Injunctions, Arius remained still in the same Opinion, as well as several other Bishops and Eccle­siasticks who had approved of it. Alex­ander, angry at his not being obey'd, Ex­communicated him, with all those of his Party, and oblig'd him to depart out of Alexandria. There were, among others, five Priests of this City, and as many Dea­cons of the same Church, besides some Bishops of Egypt, as Secondas and Theonas. To them were joined a great number of People, some of which did in effect approve the Doctrine of Arius, and others thought that he had been condemned with too high an hand, without entring into the Discus­sion of the Controversie.

After this Severity, the two Parties en­deavoured to make their Opinions and Conduct be approved by Letters which they sent every where. They exposed not only their Reasons, but endeavoured to render odious the opposite Party, by the Conse­quences they drew from their Opinions and [Page 104]in attributing to them strange Expressions. Some Bishops, as Eusebius of Nicomedia, exhorted Alexander to reconcile himself with Arius, and others approv'd his Conduct, and advised him not to receive him into his Communion till he retracted.

The Letters of Alexander and Arius are too considerable to be here omitted: Here's then the summ of them:

Arius wrote to Ap. E­piph. in Hes. LXIX. & Theoder. l. 1. c. 5. Eusebius of Nicodemia, to entreat his Protection against Alexan­der, who had excommunicated him, and driven him out of Alexandria, because he could not grant him, that the Father and the Son are Co-eternal; that the Son co-exists with the Father without Gene­ration, having been always begotten, and not begotten at the same time, without letting it be imagined that the Father has existed so much as one Moment before the Son. — He added, That Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarba, Gregory of Beryta, and Aetius of Lydea, condemning the Sentiments of Alexander, had been likewise struck with an Anathema, as well as all the Eastern People who were of the same Opinions, except Philogonius Bishop of Antioch, Hellanicus of Tripoly, and Macarius of Jerusalem, one of which said, That the Son was an Eructation, the [Page 105]other a Projection; and the other, that he was not begotten, no more than the Fa­ther. — To this Arius added the Ex­planation of his Opinion, which we have already related.

The Bishop Sozom. II. of Nicomedia having re­ceiv'd this Letter, call'd a Synod of his Province of Bythinia, which wrote Cir­cular Letters to all the Eastern Bishops, to induce them to receive Arius into Com­munion, as maintaining the Truth, and to engage Alexander to do as much. We have still a Letter of Eusebius to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, wherein he not only intreats Pau­linus to intercede for Arius, but wherein he exposes and defends his Sentiments with great clearness. He says, He has never heard there were Two Beings without Ge­neration, nor that the One has been parted into Two; but that this single Being had begotten another, not of his Substance, but perfectly like to him, although of a different Nature and Power: That not only we cannot express by Words the Be­ginning of the Son, but that is even In­comprehensible to those Intellectual Beings which are above Men, as well as to us. — To prove this, he cites the 8th. of the Proverbs, God the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before is works of old: I was set up from Everlasting, and he has [Page 106]begotten me before the mountains were brought forth. He says, That we must not search in the Term of Begetting, any other signification than that of Producing; be­cause the Scripture does not only use it in reference to the Son, but moreover in speaking of Creatures; as when God says, I have begotten Children, and I have brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.

But these Letters not having had the Success which Arius expected, he sent to get leave of Paulinus, of Eusebius, and Patro­philus Bishop of Scythopolis, to gather those who were of his Opinion into a Church, and to exercise among them the Office of a Priest, as he was wont to do before, and as was done at Alexandria. These Bishops having Convocated the other Bishops of Palestine, granted him what he demanded, but ordered him however to remain subject to Alexander, and to omit nothing to ob­tain Communion with him.

There is extant a Letter of Arius, di­rected to this Bishop, Apud E­piph. II. and written from Nicomedia, which contains a Confession of Faith, according to the Doctrine which Arius affirm'd that Alexander himself had taught him; wherein, after having denoted his Belief touching the Father, which includes nothing Heterodox, he adds, That he hath [Page 107]begotten his only Son before the times Eternal; that it is by him, that he has made the World; that he has begotten him, not only in Appearance, but in Rea­lity; that this Son subsists by his own Will; that he is unmoveable; that he is a Creature of God that is perfect, and not as other Creatures; that he is a Production, but not as other Productions: Nor as Va­lentinian said, a Projection of the Father: Nor as Manes affirm'd, a Consubstantial Part of the Father: Nor as Sabellius call'd him, a Son Father ( [...]:) Nor as Hieracas spake, a Lamp lighted by a Lamp, or a Torch divided into two; that he did not exist before he was begot­ten, and became a Son; that there are three Hypostases (that is to say, different Substances) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that the Father is before the Son, although the Son was created before all Ages. Arius adds, that Alex­ander had several times preach'd this Do­ctrine in the Church, and refuted those who did not receive it. This Letter is sign'd by Six Priests, Seven Deacons, and Three Bishops, Secondus of Pentapolis, Theonas of Lybia, and Pistus whom the Arian Bishops had Establish't at Alexan­dria.

Alexander Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. wrote on his side Circular Letters, wherein he sharply censures Eu­sebius of Nicomedia, in that he protected Arius, and recommended him to others. He joins to this the Names of those who had been Excommunicated, and explains their Doctrine, wherein he contents not himself to set down what we have seen in Arius's his Letters, touching the Begin­ning which he attributes to the Son; he says moreover, that this Priest maintain'd, that the Son is one of the Creatures; that we cannot call him the Reason and Wisdom of the Father, but improperly, seeing that he himself has been produced by the Rea­son and Wisdom of God; that he is subject to change, as other Intelligent Creatures; that he is of another Essence than God; that the Father is Incomprehensible to him, and that he doth not so much as know what his proper substance is; that he has been made for our sakes, to serve God as an Instrument in Creating us; and that without this, God had never begotten him. Alexander adds, That having as­sembled near a hundred Bishops of Egypt and Lybia, they had Excommunicated Arius and his Followers, by reason of his Opinions. — He afterwards comes to prove this, and shews first. The Eternity of the Son, by this passage of St. John, In the [Page 109]Beginning was the Reason. 2. That he cannot be reckoned among the Crea­tures; because the Father says of him, in the 45th Psalm, My Heart has uttered (eructavit) a good Word. 3. That he is not unlike the Essence of the Father, of which he is the perfect Image, and the Splendor, and of whom he says, He that has seen me, has seen the Father. 4. That we cannot say, There was a time in which he was not, seeing that he is the Reason, and the Wisdom of the Father; and that it will be absurd to say, There was a time in which the Father was without Reason and Wisdom. 5. That he is not subject to change; because the Scripture says, He is the same yesterday and to day. 6. That he was not made because of us; seeing St. Paul says, That it is because of him, and by him, that all things are. 7. That the Father is not Incomprehensible to the Son; seeing he says, As the Father knows me, so I know the Father.

This Letter, wherein Eusebius of Nico­media is extremely ill treated, shock't this Bishop to the utmost Point; and having great access to the Court, because Constan­stine made then his abode at Nicomedia; this occasion'd divers Bishops to be at his devotion: But he could not engage Alex­ander to forget what had past, to speak [Page 110]no more of this Controversie, and to re­ceive Arius into Communion. The Quar­rels every day grew hotter, and the People were seen to range themselves, some ta­king Arius's side, others Alexander's; and the Comedians being Gentiles, this gave them occasion to make a Sport of Christian Religion on their Theatres.

Each side treated one another with the odious Name of Heretick, and endeavoured to shew, that the Sentiments of the oppo­site Party overthrew the Christian Religion; but it appears, that neither the one nor the other Party could yet persuade the Emperor, seeing he wrote to Alexander and to Arius, a long Letter, of which Hosius Bishop of Cordavia was the Bearer, wherein he equal­ly chides them: He says, he found that the Controversie Apud Eu­seb. de Vit. Const. c. 64. & Seq. & Socrat. l. 1. c. 7. had begun in this man­ner; That Alexander having demanded of each of his Priests, what they thought of a Passage of Scripture, or rather, on an idle sort of Question ( [...],) Arius inconsiderately answered what he should not have thought, or rather conceal'd, if he had thought it, That from thence had come his Excommunication, and the Division of the People. And there­fore he exhorted them to a mutual pardon­ing of one anther, and to receive his Opinion, which was, That it had been [Page 111]better not have troubled the Ecclesiasticks with this Question; and that those who were ask'd it, should have held their Tongues, because the matter concern'd what was equally incomprehensible to both Parties, and which serv'd only to raise Disturbances among the People. He could not conceive, how for a Question of very small importance, and in which, if they well understood one another, they would find they agreed in the main, they should make such a bustle, and divide themselves in so scandalous a manner.

I do not say this (adds he) as if I would constrain you to think the same thing on a most vain Question, or however you will please to call it. For one may, with­out dishonouring the Assembly, and with­out breaking the Communion, be in dif­ferent Sentiments in such inconsiderable things. We have not all the same Wills in all things, neither are we all of us of the same Temper of Body and Hu­mors.

The Emperor's Letter (says Socrates) gave them admirable Advice, and full of Wisdom; but the Mischief was grown too great, and neither the Emperor's Endea­vours, nor his Authority who brought the Letter to Alexandria, could ap­pease it.

Alexander had taken care to write every where, to hinder the spreading of Arius his Opinions. We have still Ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. a long Letter which he wrote to the Bishop of Constan­tinople, wherein he vehemently inveighs against the Arian Faction, and endeavours to render it odious, in saying, That Arius maintain'd, That the Son was of a Na­ture capable of Evil, as well as of Good, although it actually remain'd without Sin, and that it was for this, that God had chosen him for his Eldest Son. He proves the Eternity of the Son, and that he was not extracted from Nothing; because he was in the Beginning, and that all things have been made by him. Yet he holds. That the Son has been begotten, and that only the Father is without Generation, although the Subsistence or Substance of the Son ( [...]) Valesius renders that word in that Letter sometimes Subsisten­tia, and sometimes Essentia and Sub­stantia, al­though it be in the same con­tinued Discourse. be incomprehensible to the Angels themselves, and that there is none but melancholy Persons who can think of comprehending it. He after­wards shews, That the Manner after which Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is infinitely more excellent than the Manner after which Men are; seeing he is so by his Nature, we only by Adoption.

He accuses Arius with following the Doctrine of Ebion and Artemas, and for having imitated Paul of Samosatia, Bishop [Page 113]of Antioch, whose Doctrine had been em­brac'd by Lucien (Martyr) who by reason of this, had separated himself from the Communion of three following Bishops of this City. He joyns to him three Bishops of Syria, who seem to have been Paulinus, Eusebius and Theodotus, and reproaches them with using Passages which relate to the Humiliation of Christ, to attack his Divinity, and to have forgotten those which speak of the Glory of his Nature, such as this is; The Father and I are one: Which the Lord says (adds he) not to de­note that he is the Father; nor to say, that two Natures, in respect of the man­ner of existing ( [...]) are but one; but because the Son is of a Nature which exactly keeps the Paternal Resemblance, being by his Nature like to him in all things, the unchangeable Image of his Father, and a Copy of this Original. He afterwards defends himself largely against the Consequence which Arius drew from his Adversaries Sentiments, which consisted in accusing them, for denying the Generation of the Son, in making him Eternal. — He affirm'd, That there is an infinite difference between the Creation of the World, and the Generation of the Son, although this last be wholly Incom­prehensible, and that he cannot explain it.

In the mean time, the Division encreased so greatly among the People, that in some places it came to a Sedition, wherein the very Statues Euseb. de Vit. Cons. l. 3. c. 4. of the Emperor were thrown down, who appear'd to favour the Arians, because he would have 'em tolerated. There was moreover the Controversie about Easter, the one denying that it should be celebra­ted at the same time as the Jewish, and the others affirming it; but this Contest had not produced a Schism, as Arianism had done.

Constantine, seeing that these Letters had been fruitless, thought there was no better way to allay these Controversies, than to call a Council from all Parts of the Roman Empire. It was perhaps Hosius who gave him this Advice, at least if we may believe L. 1. c. 7. Philostorgus, the Bishop of Alexandria be­ing gone to Nicomedia, there assembled some Bishops of his Opinion, with whom Hosius and he consults to find out means to set up their Opinion, and to get that of Arius condemned; and a little while after, the Emperor call'd a Council at Nice, a Town of Bythinia. Euseb. in Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 6. This was in the Year 325; and to the end that nothing might hinder the Bishops from coming, Constantine took on himself the Charges of their Journey. The Historians are not agreed in reference to the Number of 'em, some setting down more than Three hun­dred, [Page 115]and Eusta­thius of Antioch, says there were 270. Theod. l. 8. Constantin. 300. Socr. II. 9. Eu­sebius 252. Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 9. S. Athanas. 318. others less. We must not won­der at this diversity, seeing there are few Passages in Ecclesiastical History, wherein appears more Confusion and Neglect, than in the History of this famous Council. And therefore have we been obliged to extract what we are going to say, out of divers Historians; because none of the Antients has been compleat in his Relations. As to the diversity obserable among the Histo­rians on the same Facts, we have followed either the most ancient, or those which have appeared most probable.

Eusebius, who was present at the Council, has past very lightly over the Circumstances of this History apparently, lest he should either offend the Arians, or the Orthodox. This Affair has never been since discoursed of with an entire Dis-interests, Reports ha­ving been often related as certain Facts. In a word, There has never any thing hap­pen'd, whereunto one may apply with more reason these words of Tacitus; Maxima quaeque ambigua sunt, dum alii quoquomodo audita pro compertis habent, alii vera in con­trarium vertunt, & gliscit utrumque poste­ritati. Eusebius vaunts very much the Bishops which were here: But Socrat. l. 7. Sabinus, a Macedonian Bishop of Heraclea, a Town of Thrace, treats them as Ignoramus's, in his Collection of Councils. There was like­wise [Page 116]a great number of Priests and Deacons who came in company with the Bishops.

The Council open'd the 14th. of June, and therein were regulated several things, which we shall not here take notice of, de­signing only to remark what past in relation to the principal Question therein decided, to wit Arianism. As soon as ever the Bi­shops were arrived, they made particular Assemblies without any interruption, and sent for Arius Sozom. l. 7. & 19. to them, to inform them­selves of his Opinions. After they had heard from him what he thought, some of 'em were for condemning all sorts of No­velties, and to content themselves in speak­ing of the Son, in the same terms their Pre­decessors had used; and others affirm'd, that the Opinions of the Antients were not to be received without examining. There were seventeen Bishops (according to Ib. c. 20. Sozomen) who favoured Arius his new Explications, the chief of which were Eu­sebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Menophantes of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scy­thopolis, Theognis of Nice, Narcissus of Ne­roniadas, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secon­dus of Ptolemais. These Bishops drew up a Confession of Faith Theodor. l. 1. c. 7. ex Athanasio. according to their Sentiments: but they had no sooner read it in the Assembly, but it was cry'd out upon as false; 'twas torn in pieces, and [Page 117]they were reproach'd with it, as Persons who would (as they said) betray the Faith and Godhead of Christ. A Letter of Eu­sebius of Nicodemia, wherein he exprest his Thoughts, had the same lot.

Afterwards, a Creed was undertaken to be made, wherein the Opinions contrary to those of Arius were established. It was im­mediately observ'd, that the new ways of of speaking which the Arians used, were to be condemned. That the Son had been extracted from Nothing; That he was a Creature; That there was a time wherein he was not, &c. And Scripture Phrases were to be used, such as these; That the Son is Only-Begotten, the Reason, Power, Wisdom of the Father, the Brightness of his Glory, and Character of his Power. The Arians having shew'd that they were ready to ad­mit a Confession exprest in these terms: the Orthodox Bishops feard lest they should expound these terms in an ill sence. And therefore they were for adding, That the Son is of the Substance of the Father; be­cause this is that which distinguishes the Son from the Creatures. Hereupon the Arians were ask'd, whether they acknow­ledged, That the Son is not a Creature, but the Power, the only Wisdom and Image of the Father; That he is Eternal, and like to the Father in all things; in fine, True God. The [Page 118] Heterodox having spoken among themselves, believ'd that these Expressions might very well agree with the Notion they had of the Divinity of the Son, and denoted they were ready to receive them.

In fine, It being observed, that Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the Letter which was read, rejected the Term of Consubstantial ( [...],) it was thought, that the Or­thodox Doctrine could not be better ex­press'd, and all Equivocation excluded, than in making use of it; and so much the rather, in that the Arians seem'd to be afraid of it. This Circumstance is owing to Lib. 3. de Pid. ad Grac. cap. ult. St. Ambrose, whose words are these; Auctor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediae Epis­copus, Epistola sua prodidit, dicens; si verum inquit, Dei Filium increatum dicimus, ho­moousion, Consubstantialem cum Patre inci­pimus consiteri. Haec cum lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Nicoeno, hoc verbum in tractatu fidei posuerunt Patres quod viderunt Adver­fariis esse formidini, ut tanquam evaginato ab ipfis gladio ipsum nefandae caput Haereseos amputarent.

The Orthodox conceiv'd then their Sen­timent, touching the Divinity of the Son, in these terms; Socr. l. 1. c. 8. We believe in one only Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, only Son of the Father; that is to say, of the Substance of the Father, God, born of God, Light of [Page 119]Light, True God, born of the True God, be­gotten, not made, Consubstantial with the Father.

The Arians in vain complain'd, that these words were not to be found in Scripture: They were told, That those they were wont to use, were not there neither, being wholly new; whereas it was near six-score Years since, that several Bishops had used the word Consubstantial.

The Fathers of the Council, during this Time, were not so busied in vanquishing the Arians, and in making several Regula­tions, which I shall here omit, but that they remembred their private Grudges. Several Church-men (says L. 1. c. 17. Sozomen) as if they had been assembled to prosecute their particular Affairs, as it commonly hap­pens, thought this a sit time to get those punish'd who had offended them. Each of 'em presented Requests to the Emperor, wherein they accused one or other, and signified the Wrong they had done them. This happening every Day, the Emperor set one a-part, in which they were every one of 'em to bring his Grievance. The Day being come, the Emperor took all their Requests, and caused them to be thrown into the Fire, and exhorted them to a mutual Forgiveness, according to the Precepts of the Gospel. He afterwards [Page 120]enjoyn'd them to labour in clearing up the Points of Faith, of which they were to be Judges; and a fix'd Day, wherein the Question of the Constubstantiality should be decided.

The Day appointed Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 10. being come, Con­stantine convocated all the Bishops into an Hall of the Palace, where he had caus'd Chairs to be set on both sides. The Bi­shops entred first, and the Emperor came in afterwards, and did not sit down at the Head of the Assembly on a Gilded Seat which he caused to be there placed, till the Bishops, by Signs had given him leave. Being set down, Eusebius of Caesarea, who was at his Right-hand, harrangu'd him, and thank'd him for the care he had taken to preserve the Purity of the Catholick Faith. Constantine afterwards began to speak, and made a Discourse in Latin, wherein he represented, That he had no greater Affliction, than the Divisions he observ'd among Christians; exhorting the Bishops very earnestly to Peace. An Inter­preter afterwards turn'd the Speech into Greek, for the Eastern Bishops understood not Latin.

Although it seems that Business was pre­pared in particular Assemblies before-hand, yet there arose at first a great Controversie: And Constantine had the patience to hear long [Page 121]Contests, wherein he exercised the Office of Moderator, in endeavouring to accord those whose Sentiments or Expressions ap­pear'd remote, in upholding the Arguments which seem'd to him weak, and in giving Praises to such who seem'd to speak well. Eusebius of Caesarea long held out against the Use which they Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. & Theod. l. 1. c. 12. would make of the word Consubstantial. He offer'd another Confession of Faith, wherein it was omit­ted, and wherein he call'd the Son barely, God born of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, Only Son, First-born of all Creatures, Begotten of his Father before all Worlds. The Emperor approv'd this Confession of Faith, and exhorted the Fathers of the Synod to follow it, in adding thereto only the word Consubstantial.

Afterwards the Confession was read, which had been drawn up with this Word, the Terms of which have been already re­cited. Anathema's were join'd thereto, against those who should use, on this Occa­sion, other Terms than those of the Holy Scripture; which must be understood, with an Exception of those which the Council thought fit to Consecrate.

This Proposition was particularly con­demn'd, That the Son existed not before he was begotten. Eusebius and others re­quested; That the Terms of the Symbol, [Page 122]and Anathema's might be explained. 1. It was said, That the word Begotten, and not Made, was used; because this last word expresses the Production of Creatures, to which the Son has no likeness, being of a Substance far more excellent than they, begotten by the Father in an incomprehen­sible manner. 2. As for the word Consub­stantial, it is proper to the Son, not in the sence wherein it is taken, when we speak of Bodies, or Mortal Animals, the Son be­ing Consubstantial with the Father, neither by a Division of the Divine Substance, of which he possesses a part, nor by any change of this same Substance. The meaning of which is only this, That the Son has no Re­semblance with the Creatures which he has made; but, that he is in all things like to his Father, by whom he has been begotten; or, That he is not of another Hypostasis, or Substance, but of that of the Father. 3. Those were condemn'd, who said, That the Son was not before he was born, seeing that he existed before his Corporal Birth, and even before his Divine Generation, ac­cording to Constantine's Argument: These words of Eusebius's Letter are not to be found but in Theodo­rit, Socra­tes having retrenched them. For before (said he) that he was actually Be­gotten, he was in Power in his Father, in a manner Unbegotten, the Father ha­ving been always Father, as he is al­ways King and Saviour, and all things [Page 123]in Power, being eternally in the same Condition.

It will perhaps seem, that this is pure Arianism, and that this is to deny the Eter­nity of the Son. But we must observe, that in the style of that time, to Exist be­fore the World, and to be Eternal, is the same thing; seeing, that to prove his Eter­nity, this Passage is cited, Vid. Ep. Alexandri Ep. Al. su­pra lauda­tam. In the Begin­ning was the Word: And it sufficed to shew, that he was Begotten before there was any Time. So that we must not reject these words as Supposititions, meerly for this reason: And it is so ordinary to find hard Expressions, in those who attempt to ex­plain, in any sort, this incomprehensible Mystery, that if one might hence judge of them, one would be apt to declare them all Hereticks; which is to say, to anathema­mize the greatest part of the Ancients.

Besides this, † De. De­ret. Nicaen. Tom. 1. pag. 251. St. Athanasius, who openly treats Eusebius as an Arian, makes allusion to one part of this Passage, and draws thence a Consequence which Eusebius, without doubt, would not have owned, which is, That the Arians believed that the Divinity of Jesus Christ did not exist before his Corporal Birth.

After these Explications Eusebius sub­scribed, as he himself testifies in the Letter above recited, Athanas. ibid. although he had refused it [Page 124]the day before. The long and formal Op­position which he had made against the word Consubstantial, caused it to be sus­pected that there was want of Sincerity in this Subscription. In fine, Arius and his Party were anathematized, and all their Books condemned, and particularly a Poem which Arius had entituled Thalia.

Most of the Arian Bishops subscribed, after Eusebius his Example, to this Confes­sion of Faith, and the Anathema's, after the Explication above-mentioned. Yet there were some of 'em who refused at first to sign, Socr. l. 1. c. 1. the principal of which were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Calcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Se­condus of Ptolemais. They were immedi­ately Excommunicated by the Council, and were to be sent afterwards, as well as Arius, into Exile, by Constantine. The Council wrote a Circular Letter Ib. Socr. l. 1. c. 9. to the Churches of Egypt, denoting to 'em in what sort they had carried themselves in the business of Arius, and what had been ordered touch­ing Melece the Schismatical Bishop, and the Observation of Easter.

Constantine wrote also to the Church of A­lexandria, to assure it, that after a full and ma­ture Examination, Arius had been condemned by the common Consent. He greatly vaunted of the Moderation and Learning of the Bi­shops, [Page 125]making no mention of their Quar­rels, according to the Custom observed in Publick Acts, and such like Occasions, where every thing is supprest which may give an ill Opinion of the Decrees of these kinds of Assemblies.

In another Letter directed to the Bishops and Churches, he enjoins the Name of Por­phyrus to be given to Arius, and his Fol­lowers to be called Porphyrians. This Por­phyry was a famous Platonist, who had writ­ten against the Christian Religion, and whose Books Constantine had caus'd to be burnt. Lucas Holstenius has written his Life, which is to be found at the end of the Book Of the Abstinence of Animals.

Constantine design'd to declare hereby Arius an Enemy to the Christian Religion, and not in any manner reproach him with being a Platonist, touching the Trinity; seeing Constantine did not disapprove, as we have seen, the Sentiments of Plato.

It's true, the Arians have been upbraided with their too great application to the read­ing of this Philosopher, and other Heathen Authors: Revera de Platonis & Aristo­phanis (says Advers. Lucif. T. 2. p. 142. Ed. Gryph. St. Jerom) in episcopatum alle­gentur: Quotus enim quisque est qui non apprime in his eruditus sit? Accedit ad hoc quod Ariana hoeresis magis cum sapientia seculi facit, & argumentationum rivos de Aristo­telis [Page 126]fontibus mutuatur. Thus the Ortho­dox and Hereticks equally approved the Sentiments of Plato, each of them appa­rently explaining them according to his Hypothesis.

Constantine further ordered, in the same Letter, to burn all Arius's Books; to the end, that not only his pernicious Doctrine be destroyed, but that there remain no monument of it to Posterity. — He like­wise declared, That if any one concealed any of his Books, and did not bring them to be burnt, he should be put to death after it had been proved upon him.— There is moreover another Letter of this Emperer, wherein he enjoins all Churches to celebrate Easter, according to the Ca­nons of the Council.

Eusebius and Theognis either actually be­lieving that the Creed of the Council might admit an Arian fence, Socrat. l. 1. c. 14. or affrighted by the Emperor's Severity, offer'd to sign the Creed, but refused to anathematize Arius, affirming that Opinions were attributed to him which he had not. Eusebius so or­dered, by the means of his Friends, about the Emperor, Ex. Epist. Const. ad Nicomed. ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 20. that what he desired was granted him, which is to say, that they were contented with his subscription to the Creed. Theognis and Maris did as much; and the Letter of the Council to the [Page 127]Churches of Egypt mentions only Theonas and Secondus who had absolutely stood out. Philostorgus likewise acknowledges L. 1. c. 8, & 9. that all the Arian Bishops subscribed except two; and reproaches the rest with their insinceri­ty, in that they had explain'd after the Arian fashion the Terms of the Council, by the Ad­vice of Constantia the Emperor's Sister. He adds, That Secondus setting out to go into Exile, said to Eusebius; You have subscribed Eusebius, that you might not be banisht; but for my part, I believe what God has revealed to me, which is, that you shall be carried in­to Exile, before the year comes about.

Arius, if we believe the Orthodox, had not the Courage to resolve on Banishment with Secondus and Theonas: He pretended a desire to be better instructed, and sought an occasion of conferring with Athanasius Dea­con of Alexandria, Athanas. T. 1. p. 111. whose Acts are still extant. If this Relation be true, one may conjecture, that Arius designedly defended himself but ill, the better to yield to his Adversaries Reasons, as he did, to obtain his Grace. He acknowledges, at the end of this Conference, the Equality and Consub­stantiality of the Son with the Father; after which, he shews himself entirely reclaim'd from his Error. The Fathers of the Council receiv'd him, as a Penitent, without setling him in his Employ; and the Emperor only [Page 128]forbad him to go to Alexandria. Euzoius and Achillas, Colleagues of Arius, were also pardoned; and In Lucif. p. 145. T. 2. St. Jerom adds to them eight Bishops, of which he names but three, and one Priest, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theog­nis of Nice, Saras Priest of Lybia, and Eu­sebius Bishop of Caesarea. It appears from the sequel of the Dialogue, that the Arians denied that the Bishops of their Party were reconciled at Nice; but St. Jerom grounds himself on the Acts and Subscriptions of this Council, which yet he had not then at hand, excusing himself from naming the four other reconciled Bishops by a Rheto­rical Figure, & reliqui, quos enumerare lon­gum est. There needed not so much time for to set down four Names, but without doubt he did not remember them.

The first who sign'd the Council among the Orthodox, was Hosius Bishop of Cor­dova; afterwards, Vitonius and Vincent, Roman Priests, sent by Sylvester; after them, the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Je­rusalem; and, in fine, the other Bishops. Those who favour the Pretensions of the Church of Rome, say that Hosius sign'd in Quality of Legate from the Bishop of that City, but the most ancient Historians have not a word of it.

The Council ending the 25th. of August, Constantine took his farewel of them, in a [Page 129]very fine Harangue, Eusch. in Vit. ejus, c. 21. wherein he exhorted the Fathers to thoughts of Peace, and to a mutual Forbearance; but which was of little effect, as will appear by the sequel.

Thus ended this famous Council, the Circumstances of which would be better known to us, if the fear of offending great Persons, the Zeal of some, the Passion of others, and the Respect which Posterity has had for the Decisions of so famous an As­sembly, had not hinder'd contemporary Authors from writing the History with the Exactness and Impartiality remarkable in good Historians; and retain'd those who have liv'd since, from saying what they knew (perhaps) that was disadvantagious. St. Athanasius, in a little Treatise already cited, and where he seems at first to be wil­ling to enter on this History, transported by the Zeal of which he was full, falls on Con­troversie and Invectives, when one might expect him ready to relate Circumstances. Sozomen says, That he did not dare to relate the Creed of Nice; L. 1. c. 10. because some of his pious and learned Friends in this Matter, advised him to suppress the things which the Initiates and the Priests alone should under­stand, and that according to their Council, he had conceal'd what was to be kept silent.

A while after, the Sozom. l. 1. c. 25. Emperor being to celebrate the Feast of his Vicennales, which is to say, of the Twentieth Year of his Em­pire, invited the Bishops to Byzantia, which he thought of re-establishing, in giving it the new Name of Constantinople, where he magnificently treated them, and made each of 'em a-part a Present; after which, they return'd to their Bishopricks. It seems, that it was about this time, that he wrote very obliging Letters to Socrat. l. 1. c. 9. Eusebius of Cae­sarea, in giving him order to procure him fifty Copies, fairly written, of the Holy Scripture.

As to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis his Friend, they were no sooner return'd into their Bishopricks, but they began again to preach Arianism publickly, Ex. Epi. Const. ad Nicom. l. and receiv'd into their Communion some Persons of Alex­andria, who had been thence expelled for this Opinion.

Constantine advertised of this, sent them into Exile, three Months after the Council, and establish'd at Nicomedia one Amphion for Bishop, and Chrestus at Nice. Thus was Secondus's Prediction accomplish'd, and Insincerity punished.

Two Months after, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria died, which occasioned great Disturbances in that City. The Sozom. II. 17. Philost. III. II. Ortho­dox say, that Athanasius Deacon of this [Page 131]Church, whom Alexander had brought along with him to Nice, by reason of his Knowledge, had been denoted several times by this Bishop for his Successor, but that he had hid himself a little before his death, for fear of being Elected, and that having been found, he was chosen by a Plurality of Voices.

The Heterodox affirm, on the contrary, that the Meletians being re-united to the Catholicks, after the death of Alexander, fifty four Bishops of Egypt took an Oath to elect by common Consent his Successor, but that seven among them broke their Oaths, and chose Athanasius, without the Participation of the rest. Some even assure, that the Voices were divided, and the Election not being made quick enough, Athanasius shut himself up with two Bishops into St. Denys's Church, and caused himself to be Consecrated, maugre the other Bishops, who made the Church-doors be broken open, but too late, the Ceremony being over. Hereupon they Excommunicated him; but having strengthned his Party, he wrote in the Name of the City of the Em­peror, to give him Notice of his Election; which was approv'd by this Prince, who believ'd these Letters came effectually from the Magistracy of Alexandria. There may have been Passion on the side of the Herero­dox; [Page 132]but heating our selves as we do, for the Truth, as well as for Error, and up­holding sometimes the right side by indirect ways, it would not be safe to reject what­ever the Heterodox say, or blindly receive whatever the Orthodox relate.

It seems, about this time, Constantine made his Constitution Euseb. in ejus Vit. l. 3. c. 64. against the Meeting of all Hereticks, wherein he forbids them to as­semble either in publick or private, gives their Chappels to Catholicks, and confis­cates the Houses wherein they are found to meet, performing their Devotions. Eu­sebius adds, That the Emperor's Edict more­over contain'd, that all Heretical Books should be seiz'd on; and that Constantine's Threatnings oblig'd a great number of He­reticks and Schismaticks to range them­selves on the side of the Orthodox Church. But some doing it sincerely, and others by force, the Bishops applied themselves care­fully to distinguish them, and receiv'd only into the Church those who were real Con­verts. The Arians had been ruin'd by particular Edicts, so that all Heresies seem'd to be abolish'd in the Roman Empire.

But Constantine, who had at first slighted the Subject of the Dispute between Arius and Alexander, as consisting only of diffe­rent Expressions, and who afterwards had considered it as a Point of the greatest im­portance, [Page 133]return'd again to a good Opinion of Arius; whether he acted according to his present Interests, or that he suffer'd himself to be led by those who were most about him; or that, in fine, he really changed his Opinion. Socrat. l. 1. c. 25. ex Ruffim. Constantia, Sister of Constantine, and Widow of Lucinus, had among her Domesticks, a Priest, a Friend to Arius, who held the same Opinions as he did, and who persuaded this Princess that Arius held not those Opinions he was charged with, in the manner as they were usually express'd; that Alexander had ac­cused him through Envy, because he was esteem'd by the People; and that the Council had done him wrong. Constantia, who much confided in this Priest, easily believed him, but dared not speak her Mind to the Emperor; and being faln dange­rously sick, all that she could do before she died, was to recommend this Priest to her Brother, as a Man highly Vertuous, and much devoted to the Service of her Family. A while after she died, and this Priest ha­ving gotten the Favour of Constantine, held to him the same Discourse, telling him, That if he pleas'd to admit Arius to come before him, and to explain his Opinion, he would find, that at bottom, his Doctrine was the same as that of the Council which condemn'd him.

Constantine, surpriz'd at the oddness of this Discourse, answered, That if Arius would sign the Nicene Creed, he would let him come into his Presence, and would send him honourably to Alexandria.

This Priest having assured him of it, Constantine sent Word to Arius to come to Court; and Arius not daring at first to do it, the Emperor wrote a Note to him, in which he ordered him to come immediately at his Charge. Arius obeyed this reitera­ted Order; and being come to Constanti­nople with Euzoius, they presented to the Emperor a Confession of their Faith, where­in they barely said, They belev'd that the Son was begotten of the Father before all Ages; and that the Reason, who is God, had made all things, as well in Heaven as in Earth.

If Constantine was fully satisfied with this Declaration, either he had chang'd his Mind, or given small Attention to it, or little comprehended the Sence of the Nicene Creed. However it was, it appears by the sequel, that the Arian Bishops came by de­grees into Favour, and that the Emperor treated Arius with great Kindness, and per­mitted him to return to Alexandria.

It's not punctually known when Arius was recall'd; but it's certain he had been al­ready, when Eusebius and Theoguis were, [Page 135]which happen'd three years after the Coun­cil of Nice, in the Year 328, according to the Relation of L. 3. c. 18. Philostorgus; these two Bishops wrote from the Place of their Ba­nishment a Letter, wherein they complain, Socrat. l. 1. c. 14. That they had been condemn'd without being heard, although their Conduct had been approved of in the Council of Nice, where having well examin'd the word Consubstantial, they had in fine approved of it. — They added, They had only refused to Anathematize Arius, because they knew he was not such a one as he was described; and seeing this was ac­knowledged by his being recalled, it could not be just, that they who suffer'd only on his account, should remain in Exile after his Revocation. — This Letter was directed to the principal Bishops, whom Eusebius and Theognis entreated to interceed for them with the Emperor.

In speaking of the Repeal of Arius, they directly attribute it to these Bishops; Your Piety (say they) has thought fit treat him gently, and to recall him.

A learned Man Valesius ad locum. observes in this place, that Eusebius and Theognis attribute to the Bishops what the Emperor had done, seeing it was he that had recall'd Arius; and that the Ecclesiastical Historians attribute like­wise sometimes to the Emperor the Actions [Page 136]of the Bishops; as when Socrates says that the Council of Nice forbad Arius's return to Alexander, whereas it was the Emperor. But in truth, the Emperor did then few things of his own pure motion, being only the Church-mens Tool; which falls out but too often, even among the greatest Princes.

The Letter of Eusebius and Theognis pro­duced the effect which they hoped from it. They were recall'd, with Theonas and Se­condus, who would sign nothing. The two first being return'd to their Bishopricks, drove out thence those who had gotten into their Sees, when they were sent to their Places of Banishment. They are charg'd with having immediately after sought out ways to make Athanasius undergo the same Punishment which they came from suffer­ing, by getting it told the Emperor, that he had been elected in a manner little Cano­nical, and with endeavouring to induce the same Athanasius, both by Prayers and Threatnings, to permit Arius to return to Alexandria. However, they could not then accomplish their purpose; and we shall see in the sequel, the Bickerings which they had with this Bishop.

Since the Council of Nice had been dismist, and that they had been banisht, this Usage, and the Decisions of Nice, had [Page 137]but only outwardly allay'd the Disputes, which lasted still when they were recalled. Eusebius assures us, that the Bishops of Egypt had been ever since over head and ears in Quarrels. And L. 1. c. 23. Socrates says, that he found, from the Letters of the Bishops of those times, that some were scan­daliz'd at the word Consubstantial; Examin­ing (says he) this term with too great application; they fell foul on one another, and their Quarrels did not ill resemble a Combat in the dark. It appears, they bespattered one another with Calumnies, without knowing wherefore. Those who rejected the word Consubstantial, thought the others hereby introduced the Opinions of Sabellius and Montanus, and treated them as impious, as denying the Existence ( [...]) of the Son of God. On the contrary, those who stuck to the word Consubstantial, imagining the others would introduce a Plurality of Gods, had as great an aversion for it, as if they would have re-establish'd Paganism. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch accused Eusebius Bishop of Cae­sarea of corrupting the Nicene Faith. Eu­sebius denied it, and charged, on the other side, Eustathius with Sabellianism. Thus the Bishops wrote one against another. They all accorded in saying the Son has a particular Existence, and that there is only [Page 138]one God in three Hypostases; yet they could not agree, nor remain quiet.

This is the effect of equivocal Terms, which were introduced into Christianity, without well defining them; and the bad custom of most of the Antients, who never speak calmly of these Matters; who have thought of nothing less than the expressing themselves clearly, and who seem to prove they spake sincerely, when they testified to believe, that the Mystery about which they disputed was Incomprehensible, by expres­sing themselves thereon in an unintelligible manner.

Eustathius Bishop of Antioch Socrat. l. 1. c. 24. Theod. l. 1. c. 21. Sozom. l. 1. c. 19. accusing of Arianism Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis; and these Bishops accusing him in their turns of Sabellianism; to know who had Reason on their side, a Synod was assembled at Antioch, in the Year 329, the Conclusions of which were disadvantageous to Eusta­thius. It consisted of Bishops who had sign'd the Nicene Creed only by force, among whom were the two Eusebius's, Theognis of Nice, Theodotus of Laodicea in Syria, Narcissus of Neroniada, Aetius of Lydda, Alphaeus of Apamea, and Theodorus of Sidon.

As soon as ever they arrived at Antioch, a Woman of ill Fame presented her self to [Page 139]'em with a little Child, which she said to have had by Eustathius, and desired them to do her Right against him, as refusing to receive his Child. Eustathius made great Protestations of his Innocency; but this Woman having been believed upon her Oath, he was Deposed. Theod. & Sozom. Some Authors affirmed, that the Arian Bishops had suborn'd her, to have an occasion for the Deposing of Eustathius; and that the true cause of his Deposal, was his adherence to the Nicene Creed. Others say, it was the pretended Sabellianism of which he was accused; and some have contented them­selves with saying, there were other Accu­sations for which he had been deposed. Whereupon † Socrates makes this re­markable Reflexion; Loco cit. The Bishops are wont to deal thus with all those whom they De­pose; accusing and declaring them Impious, without shewing wherein.

A Bishop was afterwards to be substituted in Bustathius's Place, and the Arian Bishops cast their eyes on Eusebius of Caesarea. But there arose a violent Sedition hereupon; some willing to retain Eustathius, and others accepting Eusebius. They had come to Fisticuffs, had not the Emperor taken care, by sending one of his Officers, who appeased the People, and made them under­stand how Eustathius deserv'd to be sent [Page 140]into Exile, and in effect he was sent into Thrace.

However, Eusebius did a thing which made him receive very honourable Letters from the Emperor, which he has inserted in the Life of this Prince, which is, that according to the Canons, he refused to pass from one Church to another. Constantine heap'd up Praises on him, by reason of this refusal, and wrote to the Council, and the Church of Antioch, to let him remain where he was. So that instead of Eusebius, there was elected Euphronius Priest of Cap­padocia, whom the Emperor had named with George of Arethusa, to the end the Council might chuse which they pleased.

Soc. 1.27, & seq. Soz. 2.27, & seq. Theod. 1.26, & seq.Having deposed Eustathius, the Arian Bishops laboured co procure the return of Arius to Alexandria; where Athanasius would not permit him to enter, as has been already said. They engaged the Emperor to write to this Bishop; but Athanasius still defended himself, in that he could not re­ceive into the Church those who had for­sook the Faith, and been excommunicated; so that Constantine wrote to him an angry Letter, that he should receive into the Church those he ordered him, under pain of Banishment.

The Obstinacy of this Bishop, who would part with none of the Advantages [Page 141]which the Council of Nice had granted to his Predecessor against the Meletians, had also drawn on him the Enmity of these Schismaticks. The Council had ordained that Melece should only retain the Name of Bishop, without Exercising the Function of his Office, and without ordaining any Suc­cessor; and that those whom he had Or­dained, should have no part in Elections. However, Melece, at his death, had ordained one John for his Successor, and the Mele­tian Priests would have the same Privileges as others. Athanasius could not consent to any thing of this, and equally ill treated the Meletians and Arians.

This Conduct re-united the two Parties, who had been till that time opposite. The Meletians were of the Nicene Opinion; but by conversing with the Arians, they soon entred into their Sentiments, and join'd to­gether, to induce Constantine to accept of several Accusations against Athanasius; as having imposed a kind of Tribute on Egypt, in ordering it to furnish the Church of Alexandria with a certain number of Lin­nen Garments; in having supplied a certain seditious Person with Money, named Phi­lumenus; in having caused a Chalice to be broken, overthrown the Table of a Church, and burnt the Holy Books; for having mis­used several Priests, and committed divers [Page 142]Violences; in having cut off the Arm of a Meletian Bishop, named Arsenius, and keep­ing it to use in Magical Opperations.

Constantine acknowledged the Innocency of Athanasius, in regard of the two first Ac­cusations; and for the rest, he referr'd it to an Assembly of divers Bishops which was at Caesarea in Palestine; where Athanasius not appearing, he was cited to a Synod at Tyre, in the Year 334, and which consisted of Bishops of Egypt, Lybia, Asia, and Eu­rope.

Athanasius was in suspence, whether he should present himself to this Synod, which consisted of his principal Enemies: Yet Con­stantine having threatned him with Banish­ment if he refused, he therefore appeared, and justified himself of the Accusation touching the Arm of Arsinius, by bringing in this Per­son into the midst of them, and deriding his Accusers. It's said moreover, that a Wo­man being introduced into the Assembly, accused him for having dishonoured her, after she had entertain'd him in her House, although he knew she had made a Vow of Virginity. But it appeared, that she did not so much as know Athanasius, seeing she took one Timotheus a Priest for him, who pretended to be the Bishop of Alexandria.

The business of the broken Chalice, and the misusing the Priests, was a little more [Page 143]difficult. Athanasius began by an Appeal from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the rest of the Bishops of his Party. He afterwards said, That he whose Chalice was pretended to have been broken, and whose Name was Ischyras, was not a Priest. However, with­out any regard to these Reasons, there were sent some Arian Bishops, to take In­formations against him at Alexandria, with Ischyras his Accuser; but he protested high­ly against this Proceeding, and went to Je­rusalem, where the Emperor was.

In the mean time, the Informations from Egypt were received, and Athanasius being loaded with them, he was deposed in his absence, and forbid to go to Alexandria. Arsenius having been admitted into Com­munion by the Council, and made Bishop of Hypsyle, a Town of Egypt, subscribed to the Deposition of Athanasius, although he had justified him, in reference to one of the Accusations brought against him. The Sentence of the Council bore, That he had flighted the Emperor's Orders, and made the Assembly wait for him in an indecent manner; That he came to Tyre with a great multitude of People, and endeavoured to make a Disturbance there; That he had for some time refused to purge himself of the Crimes laid to his Charge, and uttered Injuries to divers Bishops; That he would [Page 144]not submit to their Judgment; That he was convicted of breaking a Chalice, by the Informations made against him at Alexan­dria.

Thus was Athanasius condemned by his Enemies, who were his Judges, as Arius had been anathematiz'd by Alexander his Predecessor, and several other Bishops, who had declared themselves against him, be­fore the Convocation of the Council. The same usage has been observed in all the Assemblies of Bishops which have met since; the Clergy having this Advantage above the Laity, that they can be both Judges and Parties.

After the Deposal of Athanasius, the Em­peror wrote to the Fathers of the Council, to repair as soon as possible to Jerusalem, to celebrate the Dedication of the Church of the Apostles, which was now finished. Where being arriv'd, they were magnifi­cently receiv'd, and made several Orations, for the greater Solemnity of the Festival, which happened to be very luckily, in the same Year in which the Tricennales of the Emperor In the Year 335. were to be celebrated, which is to say, the 30th. Year of his Reign. In Vit. Const. l. 4.46, & 33. Eu­sebius particularly made several Harrangues before the Emperor, who took a great deal of pleasure in hearing them, insomuch that he would hear standing a long Oration which [Page 145]this Bishop made on the holy Sepulchre. Eusebius well remembers this Honour the Emperor did him, and the Praises he gave to his Oration touching Easter, and care­fully inserts, in the Life of Constantine, all the Letters he had received from the Em­peror; perhaps, not out of Acknowledg­ment, but rather to do himself Honour, Baronius ad haec Tempora, as he has been reproach'd with it.

The Bishops assembled at Jerusalem, Socrat. l. 1. c. 33. having ended the Dedication of the Church which Constantine had newly built, and there received into Communion Arius and Euzoius, on the Emperor's Recommen­dation. Eusebius and Theognis say, that Arius had been kindly received by the Bi­shops; but in no sort, that he was received into Communion: Which was, perhaps, for some years refused him, to try his Sin­cerity. Afterwards they wrote to the Church of Alexandria, that she might re­ceive them; and be assured, she would enjoy henceforward a full Tranquility, Envy having been driven out thence, by the de­posal of Athanasius. Sozom. l. II. 28. In the mean time, this Bishop had gotten to Constantinople, to complain to the Emperor of what he had suffered; but he could obtain no Audience from him; all that he could be heard to say, was, That he entreated the Empe­ror to cite to Constantinople the Bishops [Page 146]which were at Jerusalem, to have another Examination of his Affair.

Constantine wrote to Jerusalem, and com­plains in his Letter, that in a time wherein the Barbarians began to acknowledge the True God; The Christians, who would be thought to have the Mysteries of God in their keeping, (for he durst not say that that they kept them,) laboured only to entertain Divisions and Hatred among them, not to say, for the Destruction of Mankind. — And therefore he de­sired that the Bishops assembled at Jerusalem, would meet at Constantinople, to examine once for all, the Affair of Athanasius, and put some end to it. This Letter being to Jerusalem, some of the Bishops return'd to their Diocesses, and others to Constanti­nople. These last persuaded (according to some Sozom. id. Authors) the Emperor, that Atha­nasius had effectually broken a Chalice; or (according to Socrat. l. 1. c. 35. others) that he had threatned to stop the Convoy of Provisions which went every year from Alexandria to Constantinople, of which three Bishops were Witnesses. The Emperor, provoked by these Accusations, order'd him to retire to Triers, a Town of the Belgick Gaul, where he remain'd about two years.

The Bishops who were met at Constan­tinople, Id. c 36. deposed, after this, Marcellus of [Page 147] Ancyra, as being faln into the Opinion of Paul of Samosatia. One Asterius, who had taught Rhetorick in Cappadocia, having embraced the Christian Religion, had wrote some Books, wherein he spake of the Divinity of the Son, in the same terms as Arius. Marcellus undertook to refute them; but far from establishing the Pre­existence of the Son, he denied the Divi­nity of Jesus Christ existed before his Birth; or at least exprest himself in such a manner, that one might believe he regarded the Reason or the Word, not as a Being that has his particular Existence, but as I know not what kind of Accident, such as is the Word, or the Sound which is made in speak­ing. He also very ill treated, Euseb. cont. Mar­cel. l. 1. c. 4. in the same Book, several Arian Bishops, as the two Eusebius's, Paulinus and Narcissus. He charged likewise Origen, for expounding the Holy Scripture according to the Notions of Heathen Philosophers, and especially ac­cording to those of Plato; from whom Marcellus affirmed, he had taken his Do­ctrine of Principles, which is to say, of the Holy Trinity, of which he had treated after the Platonick fashion.

The Arian Bishops, offended with this Book, had begun to examine it, when they were as yet at Jerusalem; but having been obliged to pass over to Constantinople, they [Page 148]had only enjoined Marcellus to alter his Opinion, according to the Style of that time. He promis'd to burn his Book; but having not done it, and even refusing to do it, his Affair was re-assumed at Constantinople, and he was deposed.

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote two Books ex­presly against him, wherein he criticizes his Work; and three others, which he en­tituled, Of Ecclesiastick Theology, wherein he establish'd the Opinions which he thought Orthodox touching the Divinity, and re­futed those of Marcellus, and divers other Hereticks.

Marcellus was afterwards Socrat. l. 2.20. & Sozom. l. 2. c. 29. re-establish'd in the Synod of Sardica, because he affirmed his Expressions had been mis-understood; and being an Enemy to the Arians, he insi­nuated himself into the Friendship of Atha­nasius, who perhaps was surpriz'd by the equivocal Expressions used by Marcellus. It's certain, that if we may judge of him by the Fragments which Eusebius cites, he scarcely knew what he would say himself; or else he conceal'd his Opinions under ob­scure terms, lest he should fall into trouble.

After that Athanasius had been sent into Exile, Id. l. 1. c. 27, & sec. Arius had returned to Alexandria; but his Presence being likely to cause a Dis­order, by reason of the great number of those who followed the Sentiments of Atha­nasius, [Page 149]the Emperor recalled this Priest to Constantinople; and to assure himself en­tirely of his Belief, of which the Orthodox still doubted, he offered him the Nicene Creed to sign; which he did without bal­lancing, and moreover swore he was of that Opinion. A report ran, that he had hid under his Arm a Writing which contain'd his Opinion, and that he barely swore he believed what he had wrote; but there is no great certainty to be expected in what his Enemies say of him. Perhaps he thought, like Eusebius of Caesarea, that one might give to the words of the Creed, a sence which amounted to his Sentiment, although he wisht they had made use of other terms. What the Fathers of Nice said more than he, consisting in something absolutely incom­prehensible; perhaps moreover he counted that for nothing. However, Alexander Bishop of Constantinople refused to receive him into Communion, although the Em­peror had ordered him to do it, and a great number of Bishops and of the People urged him to it.

Besides this, the Arian Bishops were pre­paring to hold a Council, to examine afresh the Question agitated at Nice, and had mark't a day in which they were to meet to discourse about it, and to conduct Arius into the Church, maugre Alexander.

In this Extremity knowing not how to maintain his Refusal, History tells us, that he shut himself up in a Church cal­led Peace, and set himself very devoutfully to pray to God, not that he would convert Arius, or that he would discover to himself the Truth; but, That if the Opinion of Arius was true, he himself might not see the day set apart to discourse of it: — Or, That if his own Belief were true, Arius, who was the cause of so great Mischiefs, might be punisht for his Infidelity. — A Prayer so little charitable, and whence might be seen that this Bishop was more concerned for his Reputation than the Truth, fail'd not of being heard, seeing that the next Morning, which was Sunday, or the same Day at Night, as Arius went to the Church, accompanied by those of his Party, or in some other Place, (for the Historians vary,) in passing by the Market of Constantine, he had so great occasion to go and ease himself, that he was forced to betake himself to the common Privies, where, instead of finding ease, he evacuated his Bowels, and thus died suddenly. Since that time, Passengers were commonly shewed these Places of Easement, and no body dared sit down on the same place where Arius sate. 'Tis said, that a rich Arian, to abolish the memory of it, bought [Page 151]afterwards this Place of the Publick, and there built an House.

It's thus that Rufinus, Socrates and So­zomen relate the last Events of the Life of Arius. But St. Athanasius says, that having In Epist. ad Serapto­nem. having been recalled by the Sollicitations of those of his Party, he offered his Confes­sion of Faith to the Emperor, and swore that he did not believe any thing. After which, those that protected him, would introduce him into the Church, at his go­ing out of the Emperor's Palace, but that he died (as hath been said) without having been received into Communion. A Valesius. learned Man is of Opinion in this matter, That the Arius who was received into Commu­nion at Jerusalem, was a Priest of the Party of the famous Arius; and not he himself, who had already died out of the Commu­nion of the Church: — Because without this, it must be said that Athanasius has been mistaken. But were it granted him that this Bishop was mistaken, in speaking of a Man whom he every moment o'erwhelm'd with Injuries, it cannot be found strange, especially not having been at Constantinople then, when what he relates must have happened.

One may further say, that Athanasius has related, by way of abridgment, and little exactly, what he had heard say of Arius; [Page 152]and that he regarded him as an excommu­nicated Person, having been only received by a Council whose Authority Athanasius would not acknowledge, it consisting prin­cipally of Persons whose Opinions had been anathematized at Nice. It is far more na­tural thus to interpret this Passage of Atha­nasius, than to reject wholly, as false, an History so circumstanc'd as that of the later years of the Life of Arius, in respect of certain Facts which the Historians we have already cited had no interest to alter.

Arius being dead, apparently of a sud­den Death, which may have given occasion to the tragical manner in which the Histo­rians mention it, the Disputes started on his occasion died not with him: Sozom. l. 2. c. 31. Those who were of Athanasius's Party at Alexan­dria, besought of God his return, in the Publick Prayers, and ceased not to impor­tune the Emperor to make him be recalled. Constantine was obliged to write to the People of that Town a Letter, wherein he upbraided them for their Lightness and Folly, and enjoyns the Ecclesiasticks to re­main quiet; and wherein he declares he would not recall Athanasius, whom he treats as a Seditious Person, and one who had been condemned by a Council. He an­swers likewise to Anthony the Hermit; That he could not slight the Judgment of [Page 153]the Council of Tyre; because that sup­posing some among the Bishops were Pas­sionate, yet it is not probable that so great a number of Wise and Learned Bi­shops should all of them act by Passion; and that Athanasius was an Insolent, Proud Troublesom Follow.

Constantine wrote these Letters but a little time before his Death, which happen'd in the Year 337, the Circumstances of which may be seen in his Life, writ by Eu­sebius. Yet we must remember, that this is rather a Panegyrick, than an uninterest History; whence it is that he says nothing of the Death of his two Wives, and the Eldest Son of this Emperor, whom he had put to Death, through Jealousie or Re­venge.

Eusebius lived not long after him; he died towards the Year 340, and left in his Place Acacius his Disciple, Socrat. l. 2. c. 4. who wrote his Master's Life, which we have not.

I shall not relate what happened after­wards with respect to the Arian Disputes; because I only design'd to mention the Events which happened during the Life of Eusebius, or in which he was somewhat concerned. He was always of the Arians side, and St. Athanasius and St. Jerom have accused him of being of their Opinion. In effect, 'tis scarce credible, that if he had [Page 154]been Orthodox, he would have so much favoured Arianism, and given his Consent to the Deposal of St. Athanasius. Yet Ib. c. 21. Socrates hath undertaken to justifie him, by citing some Passages wherein he speaks as the Orthodox did; and several modern Authors have done the same, as Dr. Cave in the Life of Eusebius, which he hath writ in Latin and English. This latter seems to have thought himself obliged to't through Christian Charity; but others are of opi­nion, that Christian Charity, that is, the Love we ought to have for all Christians, should oblige all Historians to mention such Truths, as make no Alteration in the state of those that are Dead; and are very useful to the Living, who learn thereby to judge soundly of things. That pretended Charity, which extends it self only to the Fathers who are look'd upon as Orthodox, hath been the cause why we have in a manner only Panegyricks of the Antients, wherein their Defects are always supprest, when they cannot be covered with the Mask of some Vertues.

Eusebius, as it appears by his Conduct at the Council of Nice, was a dextrous Person, which made no scruple to subscribe to Terms which he did not like, provided he could expound them in a sence agreeable to his mind, though little agreeable to that of [Page 155]those who set them up. Indeed, a Man must shut his Eyes, who doth not see, by what he says in his Letter to the Church of Caesarea, that he understood otherwise the Terms of the Creed, than Athanasius (for example) did. So that we ought not to mind the Terms which he uses to accom­modate himself to such ways of speaking as were authorized, and which he look'd upon as equivocal; but only such places wherein he speaks after a manner altogether oppo­site to the received Opinions. In his Books De Theologia Ecclesiastica, he explains him­self with so great clearness in several places, that if some equivocal Passages may be op­posed to them, there is scarce any Citation but what may be eluded. You are afraid (says he to Marcellus, Book. 3. chap. 7.) lest by owning Two Hypostases, you should introduce Two Principles, and de­stroy the Unity of God. Learn therefore, that there being but One God, without Generation and Beginning, who begot the Son; there is but One Principle, One only Monarchy, and One Reign, since the Son acknowledges the Reign of his Father. For God is the Head of Jesus Christ, as the Apostle says. But you very much fear (say you) lest those who confess that the Father and Son have Two Hypostases, are obliged to acknowledge Two Prin­ciples. [Page 156]Learn therefore, that those who maintain that there are Two Hypostases in God, are not obliged to acknowledge Two Fathers, nor Two Sons; but they will only grant, that one of them is Fa­ther, and the other Son. So those who admit of Two Hypostases, ought not ne­cessarily to own that there are Two Gods. For we do not say that they are Equal in Honour ( [...]) nor that Both have no Beginning, or are not Begotten; but that the one is without Generation and Be­ginning, and the other is Begotten, and hath the Father for his Principle. Hence it is that the Son calls his Father his God, when he says, I go to my God, and to your God, &c. wherefore the Church teaches only One, who is the God of the Son, &c. He goes on in the same strain, and declares, that that passage and the like cannot be un­derstood of the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ. These Principles are very different from those of St. Athanasius, who says that there is but One God, though there is Three Persons; In 1. Dial. de Trin. Tom. 2. p. 160. Vid. & Curcellaei Quaternion. Diss. 1. because those Three Persons are altogether Equal, and there is but One Deity in Kind.

This is one of the chief things which ought to be observed in reading the Wri­tings of Eusebius: To which must be ad­ded, that he was a Disciple of Origen, of [Page 157]whom one may see several Opinions in the Life of Clemens Alexandrinus. It remains only to give a Catalogue of his Works, as I have done in the Life of Clemens. I shall make use of Dr. Cave's Chartophylax, ad­ding to it what I shall think fit.

1. A Chronicle, or an Universal History: The First Part whereof, which is now very imperfect, contains the Antiquities of al­most all Nations, of the Chaldaeans, Assy­rians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Hebrews, Egyptians, &c. Eusebius took it from Africanus. The Second, entitled A Chro­nological Canon, is an Abridgment of the First, and reduces all the Chronology into Decades, from Abraham, to the 25th. year of Constantine: Which makes one believe that that Work was finished a little before the Council of Nice. St. Jerom translated it into Latin, adding several things to it, especially with respect to the Roman History, in which Eusebius was not very well skill'd. The Greek Original is lost; and Joseph Sca­liger endeavour'd to recover it as much as he could, by collecting all the Fragments he found in Syncellus, Cedrenus, and the Chronicle of Alexandria. He caused them to be printed at Leyden, in 1606, with his Notes; but they have been re-printed since at Amsterdam, in 1658, with more Notes.

2. The Evangelical Preparation, in Fif­teen Books, which he published after the Council of Nice, since he cites his Chronolo­gical Canons in them. The Design of Eu­sebius in that Work, is, to confute the Re­ligion of the Pagans, and to prove some Principles of ours by their Philosophers, to dispose 'em to embrace it more easily. He shews therefore, 1st. That the Christians had very good Reasons to renounce the Heathenish Religion, and gives some Abridg­ments of the Theology of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and of the Opinions of the Graecians concerning the Beginning of the World, whereby it appears that all of them acknowledged that the World is not Eternal. 2dly. That the Graecians borrowed their Di­vinity from the Eastern Nations, and that their Gods were only Dead men, whose Graves were turned into Temples, and whose Fabulous History was so ridiculous, that Plato laught at it. 3dly. That to de­fend their Fables, they have in vain ex­plained them after an Allegorical manner, a Method whereof he shews the Vanity. 4thly. That the Pagan Oracles contain only the Answers and Cheats of Bad Daemons. 5thly. That nothing was so false, as what the Stoicks said concerning Fate. 6thly. That the Opinions and Customs of the ancient Hebrews were very agreeable to the Senti­ments [Page 159]of the most rational Pagan Phi­losophers, especially to those of Plato. 7. That the History of the Hebrews is con­firmed by the Testimony of several Heathen Historians. 8thly. That the Graecians took their Philosophy from the Barbarians, especially from the Jews, to whom Plato and the Platonicks owe what they said con­cerning their Three Principles, and several other Doctrines which the Greeks admired. 9thly. That the Philosophers had an infinite number of different Opinions, which may ea­sily be confuted the one by the other, as it appears by Eusebius his Essay towards it. One may see by this whole Work, that he was very well vers'd in Heathen Authors, and had taken care, in his Study, to collect whatever might be of use to prove or con­firm the Christian Religion by the Testi­mony of Philosophers. It affords several Fragments of Authors who are lost, as San­choniathon, and several Platonicks, out of whom he cites some long Passages.

3. The Evangelical Demonstration, which contain'd Twenty Books, is now reduced to Ten. The Author explains in it the Old Jewish Religion, and undertakes to prove by the Prophets the Truth of the Christian Religion. But he grounds all his Arguments upon some Mystical or Alle­gorical Explications of some Places of the [Page 160]Old Testament, without being able to prove against those who would have denied it, that they ought to be understood so. He lends, if I may so say, his Principles to the Prophets, and then fixes to their Terms the Idea's he had of them, by virtue of those Principles. Thus Book 5. chap. 1. where he explains at large the famous Passage of Solomon concerning Wisdom, God hath be­gotten me before the Mountains; he finds in the word to Beget, all the Subtilties which the Arians used after the Council of Nice, to explain it according to their Mind, with­out openly shocking the Orthodox.

4. The Ten Books of the Ecclesiastical History came out after the preceding, which are cited in them. It begins with Christ, and ends in the Year 324, before the Coun­cil of Nice met. One may complain of Eusebius, because he hath incerted several Fables in it, as that of Agbarus, &c. and committed several Faults in Chronology (of which I have already said something.) But one ought to forgive him those Faults, be­cause he is the first who hath composed any Work concerning the Christian History; for he hath preserved a great number of Fragments of ancient Authors whom we have lost, and related their Opinions faith­fully enough. Besides, 'tis he chiefly who can give us some light concerning the Canon [Page 161]of the Books of the New Testament. He dedicated that Book to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, who hath been rank't among the Pre­lates, who favoured Arius. The neatest Greek Edition we have of this Work, is that of Robert Stephen, in 1544; and the best Translation is that of Valesius, which was printed together with the Greek in Columns, at Paris and Francfort. Yet the Translation of that learned Man is not with­out Faults. I am persuaded, that the greatest part of them come from meer Inadvertency; but it cannot be doubted that some arise from his understanding the Terms of the Antients according to the Modern Notions; as when he renders the words of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, which I before mention'd, Duas Personam Ʋnam esse, &c. [...]. One cannot alledge any place wherein the word [...] what we call now-a-days Persona in Divinis, but by supposing that the An­tients ought to think as we do; and [...] can signifie only Two Na­tures in Existence; that is, which do not differ in Kind, as a Man and a Horse, but only in Existence, or Number, as Two Men. This Lucas Holstenius observed in a Dis­course which Valesius himself caused to be printed at the end of Pag. 199, Theodoret, Eva­grius, &c. wherein he says that this Place [Page 162]must needs be corrupted either by some He­reticks or Transcribers, because he knew not how to reconcile it with the Orthodox Opinions.

5. Of the Martyrs of Palestine. This Book is to be found next to the Eighth of the Ecclesiastical History.

6. The Book against Hierocles was writ against a Judge of Nicomedia, who, Vid. La­ctant. In­stit. l. 5. c. 2, 3, 4. in the time of Dioclesian's Persecution, had com­posed two Books entitled Philalethes, where­in he compared Jesus Christ to Apollonius Thyaneus. Eusebius hath shewed the ab­surdity of that Comparison, by a short Critick of the Eight Books of the Life of that Philosopher, written by Philostratus. This Hierocles must be distinguish'd from a Philosopher of the same Name who lived almost a hundred years after, and wrote a fine Commentary upon the Golden Verses of Pythagoras.

7. I have already spoken of Eusebius his Books against Marcellus, and of the Eccle­siastical Theology. I shall only add here two things: The first is, that R. M. which are seen in the Title, signifie Richard Montagu Bishop of Chichester, who first publish'd them. The second is of greater moment, viz. that Eusebius wrote 'em in anger, and not only gives his Adversary no quarter, but besides Disputes with him about things [Page 163]that are clear, and which himself had pro­ved elsewhere. L. 1. c. 4. Marcellus said, That if we ought to tell the truth about Origen, it must be acknowledged, that he was but just come from the study of Philosophy, when he applied himself to the reading of the Scripture; and that before he under­stood it well, he betook himself to write sooner than he ought to do, because of his great Learning in the Pagan Sciences; from whence it is that Philosophy made him wander, and that he had writ some things which are not true. For Example (says Marcellus) having his mind full of Plato's Doctrines, and the Difference he teaches between the Principles, he wrote his Book Of Principles, and entitled it so. That Title only was sufficient to make one clearly perceive, that he took from Plato the first Words of his Work, as as well as the Title; for he begins thus, Those who have believed, and those who have been believed, &c. words taken out of Plato's Gorgias. — There is nothing truer than what Marcellus says here; and all who have read something of Origen will grant it. Yet Eusebius answers him in these extremely morose terms; Supposing this were true, there was no need of calum­niating Origen for it; since he immediately after adds, that Grace and Truth are by [Page 164]Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ is that Truth. What is there in it that's com­mon to Plato? I never heard that Plato wrote a Book of Principles; and Origen hath not taught the same thing as Plato, concerning those Principles. Origen ac­knowledged only One Principle, without Generation and Beginning, and above all things, who is the Father of an Only Son by whom all things were made. — One may plainly see, that Eusebius made as if he understood not Marcellus, or that Anger hinder'd him from understanding him, The Bishop of Ancyra meant only this, viz. that Origen had spoken of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, after the same manner as Plato spoke of the Three Principles of all things, and that he bor­rowed the word Principle of him, and the first words of his Book wherein he treated of them. Eusebius might have easily ap­prehended his meaning; and he was so far from believing that Plato was of another Opinion in this matter than the Sacred Writers and Origen, that he he undertakes to prove the contrary at large in his Evan­gelical Preparation, lib. 11. chap. 13, &c. which are worth the reading. In effect, what he adds concerning the Father and the Son, is equally agreeable to Origen's and Plato's Opinion. Eusebius seems to have [Page 165]followed at this time St. Jerom's Maxim, who ascribes it to him too; as he himself made no scruple to follow it: In Apol. prolib. cont. Jov. p. 106, &c. Edit. Gryph. 'Tis one thing to write in order to Dispute, and another to write in order to Teach. In the first Method, the Dispute is very much extended, and one minds only to answer one's Adversary. Sometimes one thing is proposed, and sometimes ano­ther: Men argue as they please; speak after one manner, and act after ano­ther, &c. In the second, an open and ingenuous Face is necessary, &c. Origen, Methodus, Eusebius, Apollinarius, have writ a great deal against Celsus and Por­phyry. Consider what doubtful Arguments and Problems they use to confute some Writings composed by the Spirit of the Devil. And because they are forced to say, not what they think, but what the Dispute requires, (non quod sentiunt, sed quod necesse est,) they contradict the Hea­thens. — We may see thereby whe­ther we ought always to believe what the Holy Fathers say; and that Eusebius was no Arian, only because he denied it, and used all the terms of the Orthodox. In the Writers of this kind, a word spoken against the common Opinion, proves often more than a hundred places wherein they speak as the Vulgar.

8. The Letter to those of Caesarea con­cerning the Nicene Creed, which I have al­ready mention'd.

9. Of the Places named in the Old Testa­ment, which is a little Geographical Dictio­nary of the Places mention'd in the Hebrew Books of the Scripture. St. Jerom transla­ted it, and added to it what he thought fit, Jacobus Bonfrerius printed the Original, with St. Jerom's Translation and his own, at Paris, Anno 1659, in Fol.

10. The Life of Constantine is (as hath been said) rather a Panegyrick than a Hi­story; and the Style of it also (as Photius hath observed) more florid than that of the other Works of Eusebius, which is some­what careless. However, there is after­wards a Panegyrick of that Emperor in due form, which Eusebius recited Anno 335, at his Tricennales.

11. An Exposition of the Song of Solomon, printed at Leyden by Meursius, in the Year 1617, in Quarto, with Polychronius and Psellus.

12. The Lives of the Prophets are ascribed to Eusebius in an ancient Manu­script, and are joined with Procopius his Commentaries upon Isaiah, in Greek and Latin. John Courtier publish'd them at Paris, in 1580, in Fol. Those who have publish'd a new Edition of the Evangelical [Page 167]Demonstration at Cologne, in 1688, would not have done amiss to join those Pieces with it, or to endeavour to get some of those which are not yet printed.

13. Of that number are Four Books en­titled Eclogae Propheticae de Christo, which (as Lambecius says) are in the Library of Vienna, and in that of the Escurial. But 'tis with those two Libraries as with that of Buda: The Keepers of them are so faith­ful and jealous, that they let nothing come out of them. Labbaeus says, that besides there is some Libraries some Commentaries of Eusebius upon Isaiah, a Discourse upon the Three Days that our Lord remained in the Grave; and two more concerning the Women who went to it, and the Angels they found in it.

14. We have lost of Eusebius, 1. Some Books concerning the Ecclesiastical Pre­parations. 2. Concerning the Ecclesiastical Demonstration. 3. Thirty Books against Porphyry, which, in all probability, are the greatest loss we have sustained with respect to the Writings of Eusebius; for we might have learn'd by them the Objections of the most learned Philosopher of his time, and the Answers of the most learned Bishop of his Age. 4. Some Varieties of the Evangelists. 5. Five Books concerning the Coming of Jesus Christ. 6. Some Commen­taries [Page 168]upon the Psalms, of which we have some Fragments in the Catena of the Greek Fathers upon that Book. 7. Of Topical Names. 8. An Apology for Origen, whereof the Sixth Book only (as hath been said) was Eusebius's. 9. Three Books of the Life of Pamphilus, which he mentions in the 11th. Chap. of the Book of the Martyrs of Palestine. 10. An Apology for himself, per­haps a Vindication of himself against those who accused him of following the Opinions of Arius. 11. A Collection of Ancient Mar­tyrdoms, which is reported to be in the Li­brary of the Escurial. 12. A Description of a Church of Jerusalem. 13. Of the Feast of Easter. 14. Three Epistles, the First, to Constantia, Constantine's Sister; the Second, to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, for the Re-establishment of Arius; the Third, to a Bishop named Euphration. Some Fragments of those Letters may be found in the Acts of the Second Council of Nice, Act. 5. & 6. 15. An Ancient History, which perhaps is the same with his Chronicle, and is cited by Anastasius Sinaita, as well as a Book dedi­cated to Marinus.

15. Father Sirmond, a Jesuite, printed at Paris, in 1643, several Latin Homilies, which two Manuscripts ascribe to Eusebius of Caesarea, and which Valesius thought to be his; but Dr. Cave rather believes they [Page 169]were written by Eusebius of Emesus, a Semi- Arian, who lived towards the middle of the Fourth Century.

After all, the same may be said of the Cologne Edition (1688) of Eusebius his Evangelical Preparation, and Evangelical Demonstration, &c. as of Clemens Alexan­drinus his Works of the same Edition. They have added nothing to the Paris Edition but new Faults. Although Eusebius doth not observe in those Discourses a very exact Order, yet because he divides them into Chapters, one may more easily follow him than Clemens; and in this Edition the Ci­tations are better distinguish'd from the Words of the Author, than in the Works of the Catechist of Alexandria; for there is some Comma's in the Margin of the Pas­sages that are quoted, or they are in Italick Characters. However, there is still some Distinctions of Paragraphs wanting in it, as well as in that of Clemens.

GREGORY was Vid. Pagi Crit. Baron. ad An. 354, & 368. born, according to the most exact Chronology, in the Year 300, in a Village of the Second Cappadocia, named Arianzum, near the City of Nazianzum, from whence comes the Sir­name that is commonly given him. His Father and Mother Greg. Presb. in ejus Vita. were Persons of Qua­lity, and their Vertue was esteem'd by those who knew them, if we may believe their Son, who always speaks of them with great Commendations. He says, that his Father, whose Name was Gregory too, was born of Parents who had I know not what Religion, which did partake of the Heathenish and the Jewish. Orat. 19. p. 289. They had neither Idols nor Sa­crifices, but they worshipped Fire and Torches. They kept the Sabbath, abstained [Page 171]from eating the Flesh of certain Beasts, and yet despised Circumcision. They went by the Name of [...], because they boasted of worshipping none but the Supreme God, [...]. They seem to have taken the Wor­ship of Fire from the Magi of Cappadocia, who went by the Name of Strab. l. 15. Pyrethes, be­cause of the respect they had for Fire, which they look'd upon as the Symbol of the Su­preme Deity. But they were not like them in other things. 'Tis a surprising thing, that Gregory, who (as hath been said) de­nies that they worshipped Idols, and says that his Father was born with those Senti­ments, Carm. 1. de rebus suis. v. 125. [...]. should positively say elsewhere, that he was subject to the Images of Animals. It seems that either his Memory was some­what weak on this occasion, or his great Zeal made him fall into that Contradiction; un­less one had rather excuse him, by looking on what he says of the Idols of Animals, which his Father worshipped, as a Rheto­rical Exaggeration, a Figure common enough in Gregory's Style. As for his Mo­ther Nonna, she was born of Christian Pa­rents, who had been careful of her Educa­tion, and found her extremely enclined to Piety. Her Son doth also infinitely praise her Parts and Conduct.

A Woman with such Dispositions could hardly allow that her Husband should pro­fess [Page 172]the Errors of the Hypsistarians. Besides, Gregory was a good-natur'd and temperate Man; so that tho' he had some erroneous Opinions, yet his Life was unblameable. Nonna was continually urging him to get himself instructed in the Christian Religion; but he could not be persuaded to't, till he had a Dream, which made him resolve upon it. He dreamed that he was singing those words of the Cxxii. Psalm, I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the House of the Lord. That way of Singing, though new, pleased him; and his Wife failed not to take hold of this Opportunity, to persuade him to embrace Christianity.

It happen'd at the very same time, that Leontius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, went that way with some other Bishops, in his Journey to Nice, where Constanstine had called a Council. Gregory went to see him, and told him that he had a mind to turn Christian. Leontius caused him to be in­structed; and whilst they were instructing him, to admit him amongst the Cathecumeni, he was upon his Knees, without being bid to rise, whereas the Cathecumeni com­monly stood whilst they were instructed. Those who were there, observed that Posture, because 'twas the Posture of the Priests, when they were consecrated. And his Son Orat. 19. says, that every Body look'd upon [Page 173]it as an Omen of his being some time or other honour'd with the Orders of a Priest. Afterwards, as the Bishop of Nazianzum was baptising him, those who stood by, saw him come out of the Water surrounded with Light, and the Bishop could not for­bear saying that Gregory should succeed him in his Bishoprick; as it happen'd, when the See of Nazianzum had been vacant for some time. His Son, who relates these two Circumstances, styles them Miracles: And because then, as now-a-days, every body believed not whatever Church-men said, he declares that he relates these Wonders only to the Faithful, because none of those great things appear true to profane Men. But a Man that is not profane, can't forbear suspecting, not of want of Sincerity, but of Credulity and Exaggeration, those Rhe­torical Souls who take Advantage of every thing. By relating Facts of that nature, when Men think that they say what they have seen, they often say what they have thought, concerning things at which they were surprized; and instead of the unde­niable of their Eyes, they give out the doubtful Consequences of a prejudiced Mind. They believe, without any Exami­nation, whatever is advantageous to the Party they have embraced; and whatever is contrary to it, is false, or at least suspected. [Page 174]Those who will read Gregory Nazianzen, without making these Reflexions, will run the hazard either of looking upon him as a Man of little Sincerity, or of believing many unlikely Miracles.

Nonna had but one Daughter in the be­ginning of her Marriage, if Gorgonia, whom Gregory her Brother mentions in several places, was the first Child she had; Greg. de Vita sua, p. 2. and she did heartily desire to have a Son. She made a Vow to God to consecrate him to him, if he gave her one; and soon after she had a Dream, in which she saw the Face of the Son she was to have, and learned what should be his Name. Instead of one, she had two; and as soon as they were born, she took great care of their Education, ha­ving observed in them some Dispositions which deserved to be cultivated.

As soon as Gregory came to years, he was sent to Caesarea, Greg. Presb. in Vit. Gr. p. 4, &c. the Metropolis of Cap­padocia, where he was put under the best Masters, to learn Humane Learning; that is to say, to understand the Greek Poets and Orators, and to write well in that Tongue. 'Twas the only thing that was minded in Asia; and the reading of the Pagan Authors who had writ well in that Tongue, was the Study which they applied themselves to. 'Tis thought that about that time Gregory became acquainted with [Page 175] Basil, whose Friendship was so dear to him afterwards. From Caesarea in Cappadocia he went afterwards Orat-10. p. 163. to Caesarea in Pa­lestine, whereof Eusebius was Bishop. He applied himself there Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Euzoio. to Declaming, ac­cording to the Custom of that time, under a famous Rhetor named Thespesius. Having stay'd some time at Caesarea, he went to Alexandria, which for some Centuries was much celebrated, by reason of the learned Men who were there. His stay there was not useless to him; but he did not think he could be accounted a learned Man, without going to Athens the Mother of Learning.

Wherefore De Vita sua, p. 3, 4. Orat. 19. p. 306, 307. he embarked on a Ship of the Island of Aegina, which is not far from the City of Athens. Forasmuch as 'twas in the middle of November, he had not a very prosperous Passage. Being near the Isle of Cyprus, his Ship was tossed with a violent Storm for several Days; and Provisions failing, the trouble they were in was atten­ded with Hunger; so that the Seamen would not have been able to do their Duty, had not a Phoenician Ship, which the Wind car­ried towards them, afforded them some Pro­visions. Gregory says, that his greatest grief at that time, was, that he was not Bap­tized. That Thought affected him so much, that he moved the Seamen with Pity, though they were already afflicted [Page 176]enough with the Peril they themselves were in. He made a Vow to God, that he would get himself Baptized, and consecrate him­self to God, and the Storm ceased some time after. It seems he was afraid of being damned, if he should die without Baptism; and it being the Opinion of that time, 'tis a wonder that his Father and Mother, whose Piety he doth so much extoll, should not take care that he should be Baptized, from his very Childhood. 'Tis true, Baptism might be put off, lest they should fall off from Grace, which they thought God gave to those who received it; or for fear they should be Excommunicated, if they should live after a manner unworthy of those who were Baptized. But those Fears don't take away the Difficulty; since Men are no less in danger of being damn'd if they live ill, without having received Baptism, than if they dishonour it after they have received it. However, Gregory says that his Parents were warned of the Danger he was in, by a Dream which made 'em pray for him. One of those who were in the same Ship saw also Nonna, Gregory's Mother, walking upon the Sea, and drawing afterwards the Ship to the shore, and then the Storm ceased. They sailed towards Greece, and having pas­sed by Rhodus, at last they arrived at the Isle of Egina, from whence Gregory went to Athens.

He had not been there long, before Orat. 20. p. 326. Vid. & O­lympiad. ap. Pho­tium. Ced. lxxx. Basil came to it. Then the Friendship which they had begun to contract at Cae­sarea, did very much encrease. Forasmuch as they applied themselves to the same Study, and had the same Inclinations, they grew so intimate Friends, that Gregory says they were but One Soul in Two Bodies. We shall see afterwards what altered that Friend­ship. The Sophists, or Masters of Rhetorick, who lived at Athens, had every one of them their Faction, and endeavoured by all ima­ginable means to get Disciples. In order to it, they kept some of their Party in all the Avenues of the City of Athens, and as soon as they saw some Young Men who came to study there, those who happen'd to be the strongest, seized them, and then lodged them at their Friends. Those who who were able to bring many Disciples to their Master, paid nothing to him; which made the poor Scholars watchful to observe the Strangers who came to Athens. A Young Man being thus got into their hands, some among the Scholars put some Que­stions to him, and delighted to contradict him, to know whether he had any Wit. Afterwards, they conducted him in a solemn manner to the Publick Baths; and those who had taken him, went before him two and two. When he came to the Door, [Page 178]they made as if they were not willing that he should go in, and made a great noise to fright him: yet they soon after let him go in; and when he had washed himself, they they put the Philosophical Cloak upon his Shoulders, which before he was not allowed to wear. Basil was exempted from that Ceremony, because he had made much greater progresses than those who com­monly came to Athens to study there; but it doth not appear that Gregory, who re­lates that, had a like Privilege. I have ob­served that Custom, though not very con­siderable in it self; because one may there­by apprehend how much in love they were then with the Sophistical Art, or Rhetorick, and how greedy the Masters were of getting Disciples. One may also perceive thereby, that the Academies of those times were not better regulated than those of our time; and that in all likelyhood when the Stu­dents left 'em, they were not more im­proved than they are now.

The two greatests Sophists that were then at Athens, were Himerius and Proeresius, who both were very much esteem'd by the Em­peror Julian. The latter being Eunap. Sard. in Vita Proae­res. an Ar­menian by Birth, had for that reason in his School all the Youth of Pontus, Cappadocia, Bithynia. and the other Provinces in the neighbourhood of this Country. Which [Page 179]makes one believe that Gregory studied at Athens under him. The same Sophist was so much esteem'd, that the Emperor Con­stans treated him at his own Table, and sent him to Rome with a magnificent Train, where they erected a Statue to him, with this Inscription upon the Pedestal, ROME THE QUEEN OF CITIES, TO THE KING OF ELOQUENCE.

Basil having received an Honour at Athens, Nazianz. Orat. xx. p. 328. which was seldom bestowed upon those who went thither, contracted Envy thereby. Some Young Men of Armenia, who had put on the Philosophical Cloak, and were admitted into those Schools. ( [...]. where they only learned to Prattle) before him, thought themselves bound in Honour to humble that Fresh-Man. They undertook to Dispute with him; but finding him too strong for them, they would have been forced to leave him the Field of Battle, had not Gregory, who seriously believed that the Glory of Athens was concerned in it, come to their help, and made the Combat even on both sides. But he soon after perceived that the Armenians acted out of Envy, which made him side with Basil, who after­wards put his Adversaries to flight. From that time their Friendship took deeper root, and they lived very amicably together. Had it not been for the lucky meeting of [Page 180]such a Friend as Gregory, Basil would have been weary of Athens, where he found not the Learning he hoped to find in it; but Gregory comforted him with his Conversa­tion, and gave him to understand, that it required some time to know throughly all the learned Men of a City, and to be able to judge of them without rashness. Both of them applied themselves to the wisest and most rational of those who studied at Athens, not to those who made the greatest figure, and disputed best. Basil left that City first, from whence he undertook some Travels, and at last retired to Caesarea. Gregory, some time after, returned to Cap­padocia, to assist and comfort his Father and Mother in their Old Age. He describes, De Vita sua, p. 4. & alibi. in more than one place, in a very ten­der manner, a Separation which cost him many Tears; whereby one may know that Gregory was very tender of, and heartily loved his Friends.

Gregory had then spent thirty years either in learning or teaching Rhetorick, as he himself says; that is to say, he left Athens towards the Year 354, or 355. It were almost incredible, that having a Father and a Mother very old, he should not have sooner thought to retire and live near them; nor have undertaken to do the Christian Church greater service, than to Study or [Page 181]Teach Rhetorick, Vid. Pagi Crit. Ba­ron. ad An. 354, & 388. were it not that the whole Series of his Life shews it, (as the Reader will easily perceive by the remain­ing part of this History.) Julian, who was afterward Emperor, was also there, rather (as Gregory says) to consult the Diviners concerning his Fortune, than to study Phi­losophy. From that time Gregory began to hope no good thing from him, (as I shall observe, when I come to the Orations he made against him.) After Basil's departure, he applied himself especially to Eloquence, and Declamed with so much Applause, that every body look'd upon him as one of the chief Orators of that time. He was not naturally enclined, as he himself says, to that sort of life; and he soon after made his escape from Athens, where he had been detained, as it were, against his will, with­out taking his leave of any Body. De Vita sua, p. 5, 6. & Orat. x. p. 165. He loved naturally a quiet life, which made him averse to any manner of life that would have made him too busie. Those who live after that manner, and perform well their Employments, seemed to him to be only useful to others; and those who live alto­gether in a retreat, seem'd to him to be only good for themselves. He wished he might keep a Medium between those two Extreams, and lead a kind of a Monastical life in the midst of the World, without [Page 182]taking upon him any Employment but such as he would have chosen, and without being obnoxious to some troublesom Irregularities, which render the best Employments un­pleasant.

He departed from Athens full of those thoughts, and went to Constantinople by Land. He found there his Brother Caesarius, who came thither by Sea, at his return from Alexandria, where he had studied Physick. Orat. x. p. 164. He had got so great a Reputation, during the little time that he stay'd at Constanti­nople, that the Emperor would keep him for his Physician, make him a Citizen of Constantinople, and confer upon him the Dignity of a Senator. Though Caesarius was very willing to yield to those Solicita­tions, yet his Parents Wishes, and his Bro­ther's Exhortations prevailed, and he set out with him to go to Nazianzum. But having stay'd there some time, he returned to Con­stantinople, where it was much more plea­sant to live than in a desart Town of Cap­padocia. As for Gregory, he was Baptized at Nazianzum, and his Father persuaded him soon after to renounce that quiet life, which he designed to lead, and to take the Orders of a Priest. Gregory, a great while after, could not De Vita sua, p. 6. forbear naming that Action Ep. xi. of his Father a Tyranny. But the Respect he had for him, and the Troubles [Page 183]that good Men were put to, during the Arian Controversies, wherein his Father himself was concerned, obliged him patient-to bear the yoke that was laid on him.

Basil had made him Ep. v. Greg. promise, that when he should leave Athens, he would come and live with him: But Gregory could not be as good as his Word, being obliged to live with his Parents. He invited Basil to come and see him sometimes, but it doth not appear that they were ever long toge­ther. Several Persons Orat. xi. wished that he would take Priests Orders, but afterwards did not oftener frequent the Church of Nazianzum for all that, as he upbraids them with it in one of his Orations, in which, not­withstanding, he praises the Concord and Orthodoxy of that Church. He doth also bestow upon them a considerable Commen­dation, viz. that they made Piety to con­sist, not in speaking much of God, but in being silent, and obeying him. If Ancient and Modern Divines had endeavoured to de­serve that Praise, Christianity would not have been torn by so many Disputes, nor would it be so now.

Constantius, in order to allay the Arian Quarrels, if it were possible, called an Oecumenick Council, in the Year 359, which was divided into two Assemblies. The Eastern Bishops were to hold theirs at [Page 184] Seleucia in Isauria; and the Western, at Ariminum, a Town of Romania. The Arians who were at Seleucia Socrat. l. 11. c. 40. made a Confession of Faith, in which supposing that no un­scriptural Term was to be used, and conse­quently that the word Consubstantial ought not to be used, they only said, that the Son was like the Father, according to the Apostle, who says, That the Son is the Image of the Invisible God. Those who said that the Son was not like the Father, were also condemned in it. Acacius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, drew up that Confession of Faith. The same Acacius, and those of his Party, approved the Confession of Arimi­num, which was worded after the same manner. Socrat. l. 11. c. 41. & Sozom. l. 4. c. 29. They only added to it, that in this matter, the words Substance and Hypo­stasis ought not to be used; because those words which had caused so many Disputes, were not to be found in the Holy Scripture. In the mean time, the Arians being urged by the Orthodox to say in what that Re­semblance of the Father did consist, made it to consist only in the Will: Whereas the others maintained, That the Substance of the Son, though distinct, was altogether like the Substance of the Father. But forasmuch as equivocal Terms were used by both Parties, it gave occasion to those who were not skill'd in those Subtilties, to [Page 185]equivocate, and confound two very diffe­rent Opinions. Gregory's Father was one of those who fell into that Snare; Orat. xix. p. 297. & Vit. Greg. p. 11. he subscribed to the Confessions of Faith of Seleucia and Ariminum: The miraculous Light which appeared at his Baptism, and his Study since that time, had not en­lightened his Mind to such a degree, as to make him understand the Arian Contro­versies. That Action of the Bishop of of Nazianzum allarm'd the Monks of Cap­padocia, who being full of Zeal for the Consubstantiality, refused to Communicate with the good Man, and got part of the People on their side. 'Tis likely that his Son Gregory was not then at Nazianzum; for he would have hindred his Father from committing a Fault, which he obliged him to acknowledge by a publick Recantation.

Having thus appeased the Monks, Gregory the Son got into the Pulpit, and made the Discourse concerning Peace, which is his XII. Oration, in the presence of his Father, who was not to be compared to him for Eloquence and Learning. 1. He says, That the pleasure he had to see Peace restored to the Church of Nazianzum, had induced him to make that Discourse, whereas before nothing could persuade him to speak. 2. That he had been extremely moved at the Division which had before happened; [Page 186]especially considering the austere and holy Life of the Monks, which he describes by the bye, with great Rhetorical Exaggera­tions. 3. That Divisions are the cause of all sorts of Mischiefs; and that they had reason to thank God, because that which arose in the Church of Nazianzum was over. 4. That the Church of Nazianzum, which before that last Division, knew not what Schism was, ought to endeavour for the future to enjoy a perpetual Peace. 5. That in the last Discord. Men were so fully per­suaded that the Bishop of Nazianzum acted sincerely, and kept the Truth of the Faith, that they upbraided him only with his being imposed upon by equivocal Words. 6. That every thing invites us to Peace; God, Angels, and all Creatures which are maintained by Concord. 7. That the Jews had been happy whilst they were at Peace one with another, but became unfortunate as soon as they were divided. 8. Notwith­standing, that all manner of Peace ought not to be sought after, but that a medium ought to be kept; and that 'tis one's Duty to oppose Heresie with all one's might, when any body prefesses it openly; but that one ought to forbear making a Schism upon meer Suspicions. Pag. 203. When (says he) that which troubles us, is only a Suspicion, and a Fear grounded upon no Certainty; [Page 187]Patience is more useful than Precipitation, and Condescension more than Passion. 'Tis much better to remain united together, to correct mutually one another, as the Members of the same Body; than to con­demn one another by a Schism, before they understand reciprocally one another; or to lose the Trust which they put one in another by a Division, and than to under­take to correct others, not after a bro­therly, but tyrannical manner, with Edicts and Laws. — Lastly, Gregory exhorts the Church of Nazianzum to keep the good de­positum concerning the Doctrine of the Tri­nity, which he expresses in these terms: Pag. 204. We worship a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit; in the Son we acknowledge the Father, and in the Holy Spirit the Son, &c. Before we join them, we di­stinguish 'em; and before we distinguish 'em, we join 'em. We don't look upon those Three Things as One (GOD,) for they are not things [...]. See the Life of Eusebius. destitute of a distinct Existence, or that have but One Existence, so that our Riches be only in Names, not in Things, and that Three Things be really but One. 'Tis One Thing not in Existence, but in Divinity. We worship an Unity in a Trinity; and that Trinity re-united in the Unity, is all adorable and Royal; it hath but One Throne and [Page 188]Glory; it is all above the World, above Time, Uncreated, &c.

That Speech, as almost all the Speeches of Gregory, is, 1st. Without any great Order: Thoughts are heaped one upon another, as they came into the Author's Mind; a De­fect which almost all the ancient Orators were guilty of, as well as he, and which makes him repeat the same things to no purpose. 2dly. His Reasonings seem too far­fetch'd, and are not very convincing; as when he says, That the World is preserved by Peace: That's a far-fetch'd Thought; and the contrary might be said, as indeed some Philosophers have asserted, That the Opposition which is between the several Parts of the Universe, keeps them in the state they are in, because they hinder one another from leaving it. 3dly. The Style of that Oration is too full of Figures, little correct, and even sometimes harsh; all which things often breed Obscurity. However, it must be confest, that he abounds in noble Comparisons, and happy and Energick Ex­pressions, such as those [...]. which he uses in that place wherein he condemns the Schism which I have mentioned. He is also full of Ornaments taken out of History, or Heathenish Fables; nay, he speaks some­times of the later, as the Pagan Philoso­phers did, without openly rejecting them. [Page 189]Thus, speaking of the Flames of Mount Aetna, he uses this Expression, Orat. iii. p. 86. whether it be something else, or the blowing of a Giant in torment. Elsewhere, having spoken of the Torments of Tantalus, Ixion, Orat. iv. p. 132. and Tityus, he adds; whether it be True, or a Eable, which teaches us the Truth under a Fiction. Yet there is no doubt but Gregory look'd upon all those things as meer Fables; but the Greek Philosophers, whom he had carefully read, spoke after the same man­ner. It seems, that the custom of speaking as others did, made Gregory say many things, which he had read in Pagan Authors, with­out being willing to examine 'em. But he is far from equalling the Neatness, Exact­ness and Elegancy of Isocrates, whom, they say, he proposed to himself as his Model. I thought my self obliged to set down here, in a few words, what may be said of Gre­gory's Style, that I may forbear repeating it, when I come to speak of his other Ora­tions. I shall only present the Reader with some Examples of what I have said, when occasion offers.

I must also observe here, once for all, that Gregory, with respect to Philosophy, followed the Platonick, from which he bor­rows several terms, which can't be under­stood without the knowledge of it. Thus, he says, Pag. 1 [...]8. That God is the most Excellent [Page 190]and Highest of all Beings, if one had not rather place him above the Essence, and put in him the Whole Being, since he gives it to other things. — To under­stand the meaning of those words, to be above the Essence, we must know, that the Platonicks establish'd some Chains of Beings, as they worded it; that is, a Series of Beings placed one above another: so that going up by degrees, in that Chain, more excellent Beings did still offer themselves; and at last the Supreme Trinity, which is above all the Essences of those Beings, that is to say, which can't be referred to any particular Species, but contains in it self all their Essences, and therefore can produce 'em. Vid. Pro­clum. Theol Platon. l. 3. c. 20. & alibi. Whence it is that those Philosophers say, that the Gods have some Super-essential Qualities. Without the knowledge of that Platonick Doctrine, one can't know Gre­gory's meaning in the words which I have just now quoted.

He says in the same Page, That An­gels partake first of the Light; That they are enlightned by the True Reason, and that they are some Beams of that Perfect Light. — All those terms are taken from the bottom of Platonism, as I could easily shew by explaining them, were it not that I should too much enlarge.

To return to the Historical part: The Arians being informed of the Division which happened at Nazianzum, took advantage of it, and laughed at the Orthodox. Which gave occasion to Gregory to make the Homily, which is the XIII. amongst his Orations; wherein he shews the Arians, that the Division of Nazianzum having been only by a Mistake, and having not lasted long, they did unjustly insult over that Church. Besides, he shews the advantage which the Orthodox had over the Arians and Sabellians, by comparing the Opinions of those three Societies one with another. Though that Passage is somewhat long, yet I shall set it down here; because those who have not very well studied those Matters, will better understand what was the Opinion of the Orthodox at that time, than they have done from the Passage of the XII. Ora­tion, which I have cited.

Pag. 208. Why (says he) d'ye love Vanity, and look after Lyes, by giving ( he speaks to the Arians) to the Deity a Nature which is neither One, nor Simple, but Three Natures which are divided and se­parated, and even contrary, by reason of the Proprieties which the one hath, and the others want; or by establishing One only Nature ( he speaks to the Sabellians) but a narrow and streightened one, and [Page 192]which hath not the Propriety of being the Principle of great things, either for want of Power or Will. It should be either out of Envy or Fear, to establish nothing which should equal it in Honour, or oppose it. But by how much God is more Excellent than the Creatures, by so much is it a thing more worthy of the First Cause to be the Principle of a DEITY, than of Creatures, and not to come to the latter but by a DEITY which is between both; than if a Deity [...], from whence comes the word [...]. existed ( according to the Arians) because of the Creatures, as it seems to those who are too subtle. If when we confess the Dignity of the Son and Spirit, we acknowledged no Principle of them, or if we referred them to a Prin­ciple of another nature, one might have some reason to fear that we dishonour the Deity, or introduce some Gods contrary one to another. — A little lower, he says, That the Unity moved it self, because of its Riches; and that the Number of Two was encreased, because the Deity is above Matter and Form, which are the Two Principles which Bodies are made of; That the Trinity is bounded, because of its Perfecton, and surpasses the Conjun­ction of Two; so that the Deity is nei­ther too much streight'ned, nor enlarged to Infinity. — The former (as he goes on) [Page 193]hath somewhat that's mean; and the lat­ter would breed a Confusion. The former is altogether Jewish, and the latter Hea­thenish. — The word, to move one's self, here is a Platonick term. Vid. Plo­tin. En­nead. v. l. 1. c. 6, 7. which those Philosophers use, when they speak of the Productions of the Deity: And Gregory means, that the Divine Nature was multi­plied to Three Hypostases, or Three Idivi­duum's; which is opposite to Judaism, which acknowledges but One Supreme Na­ture; and to Paganism, which admits of too many Gods. The Platonicks disputed about this among themselves; some main­tained, That the Supreme Deity had multi­plied it self only to Three Gods, Vid. Cy­ryl viii. cont. Ju­lian. & Plotin. En­nead. v. l. 8. c. 12. and that whatever is beyond it is not of a like Na­ture; and others extended it to a greater number of Deities. Plato and † Porphyry were of the former Opinion, and Plotinus of the latter.

Julian being come to the Throne, in the Year 361, sought for all manner of ways to ruine the Christians; and perceiving that they made a great use of the Pagan Au­thors, either to fit themselves for Eloquence, or to take from them some Reasons fit to defend the Christian Religion, and attack Paganism, he undertook to hinder the Chri­stians from applying themselves to the study of Humane Learning. Some Antients say [Page 194]that he forbad 'em Vid. Pagi ad An. 362. not only to keep Schools to teach it, but also to go to those of the Pagan Grammarians and Orators; others seem only to say that the Christians were forbidden to keep Schools. Julian himself says in express Ep. xlii. words, in one of his Letters, that the Children of Christians should not be forbidden to go to the Schools of Pagans, however without forcing them to't; because those who sin only for want of Understanding, ought to be taught, not punished. Gregory Nazianzen mentions that Prohibition of Julian in his Third Oration: But, as a Pagi ad Ann. 362. Modern Author judiciously ob­serves, forasmuch as he speaks there more like an Orator than an Historian, tis a dif­ficult thing to find out what he means. 'Tis an ill effect of the continual Rhetorick of most of the Antients: They are so Eloquent, that they can't be understood. 'Tis likely that Julian did not forbid the Children of Christians to go to the Schools of Pagan Teachers, either because he him­self says so, or because it was a good way to seduce 'em. Hence it is, that some learned Men amongst the Christians, as both Apol­linaris's and Gregory, put the Scripture and Doctrines of Religion in Greek Verses, or fine Prose. Those Writings might supply the room of those of the Ancient Pagans, and the Youth needed no Grammarians to [Page 195]understand 'em. Parents might easily be instead of Tutors to their Children, to ex­plain those Christian Verses to them, after they had read the Holy Scripture. How­ever, that Prohibition made the Christians very angry, who could not abide that their Grammarians, Rhetors and Philosophers should have been sent back to the Churches of the Galileans (these are Julian's words) to explain there Matthew and Luke. Had they never done any thing else, they would not have introduced so many new words, nor handled the Doctrines then in question with so many Subtilties, nor would the Pla­tonick Philosophy have had so great a share in their Decisions.

About that time, Caesarius, Gregory's Bro­ther, who was returned (as hath been said) to Constantinople, was made Julian's Chief Physician; and because of his Learning, he was admitted into the number of the Friends of that Emperor, who loved learned Men. Whereupon Gregory wrote to him a very sharp Ep. xvii. Letter, wherein he tells him, That he had made all his Family ashamed, by reason of his Conduct; That every body wonder'd that a Bishop's Son should follow the Court, and endeavour to get Honours and Riches among the Pagans; That he made his Father's Life unpleasant to him, who could not blame in others what his Son [Page 196]did; That they were obliged to conceal his Conduct from his Mother, lest she should die with Grief; That he had enough to live handsomly, without exposing himself to so great danger. Lastly, That if he went on in the same manner of life, he must be rank't among those Christians who least deserve that Name. If Caesarius was not persuaded by that Letter to return to his Parents, 'tis likely however that it strengthened him against Julian's Endeavours to induce him to renounce Christianity, which his Brother mentions in Orat. x. p. 167, 168. one of his Orations. He says, that Caesarius having answer'd all his Rea­sons, protested to him that he was a Chri­stian, and would be so all his life-time; and that Julian, in the presence of many Persons of his Court, cried out, thinking of the Bishop of Nazianzum and his two Sons, O Happy Father! O Ʋnhappy Chil­dren! Caesarius being either weary of Julian's Solicitations, or moved with his Brother's Advice, returned to Nazianzum, when Julian set out to go against the Per­sians.

It seems that about the same time, Julian sent a Captain with some Archers Orat. xix. p. 308. to Na­zianzum, to take possession of the Church of the Christians. But he was so far from being able to perform what he desired, that if he had not speedily made his escape, by [Page 197]the Bishop's or some other's Advice, he must have retired with broken Legs; [...] pe­dibus lace­ [...]tis. so great was the Ardour of that Priest's ( Gregory the Father) Anger and Zeal for that Church! Those are the very words of his Son: Which shews, that those good Men did not always preach up Passive Obedience.

In the Year 363, Julian was killed in his Retreat before the Persian Army: Ibid. An effect, if we believe charitable Gregory, of the Prayers of the same Bishop and People, who designed to break the Legs of the Captain of the Ar­chers, whom I mentioned just now.

At that time Gregory composed his two Invectives against Julian, wherein he omits nothing that can make him odious to all Posterity. Those two Orations are as full of Resentment and Passion, as can be ima­gined, against a Man, who, abating of his Paganism, had been one of the Greatest Emperors that ever were in the Roman Em­pire. A learned Man believed that those two Orations were made publick whilst Julian was alive; but 'tis a Mistake: Gregory mentions his Death in both of them. The same P. Cunaeus Praef. in Caesares Juliani. Author observes, not without reason, That we are extremely deceived by the Authority of some of those who have been formerly illustrious in the Church, when we come to judge after them of some Princes of their time. Prejudices are so [Page 198]strong (as he goes on) that most Men examine nothing, but are drawn by the Holiness of those great Men. The Vulgar fancies that 'tis a great Sin to believe that the Piety of those Men was not always at­tended with a great Candour. For my part, as I am persuaded that they had great Vertue, so I do believe that they have committed some Faults out of Pas­sion, and I remember that they are very sharp. To say nothing of others, those who had some Reputation in Greece, were apt, according to the ill Custom of their Nation, to fall into Extreams, &c. They cast into Hell those with whom they were angry, although their Vertue had raised them to Heaven: And on the con­trary, they have so much extolled those whom they undertook to Praise, that Posterity admires now-a-days their Vertue, which was scarce of the second Order. — Those who will judge soundly of the Pane­gyricks and Invectives of the Christian An­tiquity, ought necessarily to remember that Genius of the Greeks.

1. Gregory begins his Orat. iii. p. 49. First Invective with opprobious Words against Julian; to the hearing of which he invites Heaven and Earth. He addresses himself particularly to the Soul of Constans, who made Julian Caesar: speaking to him he adds these [Page 199]words, Pag. 50. If the Dead perceive any thing: From whence it appears, that he doubted whether the Dead know any thing of what passes below. Yet he says elsewere, Pag. 63. That he censures him, as if Constans was present and heard him, although he was with God, and enjoyed his Glory: Which shews that this was only a meer Rhetorical Apostrophe, from which nothing can be concluded.

2. He very much wonders that Constans raised Julian to the Dignity of Caesar, know­ing what he was; and at the same time makes the Encomium of the former, whose Piety he praises every where: Pag. 65. He defends him against those who accused him of Im­prudence, for having raised Julian so high, after he had put to death his Brother Gallus; and says, that he hoped to allay the Mind of Julian by his Favours, and that trusting altogether to his own strength, he did not fear him in the least, as one might have seen, if Constans had not died. In the fol­lowing Speech against Julian, speaking of the same Emperor, he excuses him Orat. iv. p. 119. for the Protection he granted to the Arians. He says that he was imposed upon, out of Sim­plicity, and want of Firmness, and that he was deceived by the seeming Zeal he per­ceived in the Arian Officers of the Court. It would be a difficult thing to reconcile that with the Principles of Gregory, who [Page 200]look'd upon the Arian Disputes as material ones, were it not that 'tis well known that the words of an Orator are not to be urged as those of a Mathematician. But it would be a hard matter to reconcile him with St. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers, who treated Constans much worse than Gregory did Julian. Those Great Men acted as others do; they spake according to the present Passion they were led by, without very much weighing the Figures and Expressions which they used.

3. Gregory Pag. 51. doth justly laugh at Julian, who forbad the Christians to teach Profane Learning; for the Reasons of the Christians would not have been less strong, though they were not propounded with so great Eloquence. But he feigneth to despise Elo­quence and Politeness, which certainly he did not despise, and which he displays, as much as he can, in all his Writings, which would be very often clearer, if there was not so much Rhetorick in them. He doth also upbraid Julian, who trusted much his Eloquence, with the great desire he shewed of taking from the Christians the Means of acquiring it; which (says he) is the same thing as if a Champion should Hector, and play the Couragious Man, after he hath forbidden all other Champions to fight with him.

4. He assures Pag. 58. that Constans had taken a particular Care of the Education of Gallus and Julian, Sons of one of his Uncles, Bro­ther of Canstantine, and whose Name was also Constans, to shew that he had no hand in the Murther of the latter, which was committed when Constans, Constantine's Son, came to the Throne. Nay, he designed to impart the Empire to his two Sons, who were of a very different Temper, if we be­lieve Gregory. Though they had been in­structed after the same manner, and would both be Anagnostes, or read the Holy Scrip­ture in the Church, it appeared afterwards that one of them was no Christian. Besides, there was a report, and Gregory believed it was true, that Gallus and Julian building a Temple, at common Costs, to the Honour of some Martyrs, that which Gallus caused to be built, did sensibly encrease; but the Earth quaked in the place wherein Julian was building, and whatever was raised, sunk down. There happened many other Miracles besides, all different from those of the Gospel, which were not wrought so much in the behalf of Unbelievers, as of those whose Disposition made 'em not al­together unworthy of them. 'Tis true, that Pag. 70. Gregory says, that some Lyes had been mixed with the Truth, and relates only, in a doubtful way, what was reported, [Page 202]that Julian, as he was sacrificing, saw a a Crowned Cross in the Bowels of a Victim. But he assures as certain some things that are much more incredible, in the following Oration; Pag. 71. and in this he says, that Julian having called out the Daemons, with certain Sacrifices, could not forbear being frighted, as soon as he heard the Noise, and that he saw certain Fires which commonly precede their Apparition, and that forasmuch as he had been bred up in the Christian Religion, he made the Sign of the Cross, which pre­sently drove away all those Spectrum's. The Priest, who performed the Ceremonies, and perceived the trouble Julian was in, told him that the Gods abhorred him upon that account, not that they were afraid of the Sign of the Cross, which he had made.

5. Gregory Pag. 72. derides the Artifices which Julian made use of to persecute the Chri­stians, without procuring them the Honour of Martyrdom, and without seeming to treat them ill; because whatever Pretence he used, one might easily see that their greatest Crime was Christianity. Persecu­tion upon the account of Religion, is so odious of it self, even to all those who have still some sense of Humanity left, that even those who practice it, are ashamed of it, when Superstition and Cruelty allow them some time to think somewhat more calmly [Page 203]on what they are doing. This is so true, that most of those who have suffered them­selves to be led by the blind Zeal of Perse­cution, have used the same Artifices. We have seen an egregious Example of it in our Age; and if what Gregory says here of the pitiful Arts and Cunnings of Julian, be compared with what was lately done in a great Kingdom, one will find a great Re­semblance between both. I shall omit it here, lest any body should think that I de­sign to insist upon so odious a Parallel.

6. Amongst other Reasons, which Gregory uses, to shew that Julian could not succeed in his Design, he describes thus the Power of the Saints which the Christians ho­noured; Pag. 76, 77. Did you not fear those on whom so great an Honour is bestowed, and for whom solemn Feasts have been instituted; by whom the Daemons are driven away, and Diseases cured, whose Apparitions and Predictions are known; the very Bodies whereof have as much Vertue as their holy Souls, whether they be touched or honoured; some drops of whose Blood only have the same Vertue with their Bodies? — It appears from those words, and several other places out of Gregory, and other Fathers in his time, that they had already a great respect for the Relicks of Saints, and vented a great [Page 204]many Miracles wrought at their Graves. 'Tis to be wondered how Gregory, who loved Exaggerations, said not that the Bo­dies of the Saints had a greater Vertue after their Death, than during their Life; for there is no comparison between the multi­tude of Miracles which are said to have been wrought at the Graves of Martyrs, and those which they wrought whilst they were alive. Several People believe that the want of Sincerity of some Christians, and the Credulity of some others, did very much contribute to the keeping up of Pa­ganism.

7. Our Author Pag. 77. makes afterwards an Encomium of the Monks, and despises So­crates, Plato, and all the Heathen Philo­sophers. Gregory upbraids Julian with his not esteeming Vertue in his Enemies; but certainly his Zeal made him on this occa­sion commit somewhat like it; and 'tis very certain that he had learned more by the reading of Plato and Socrates's Discourses, than by his Conversation with all the Monks he had seen. As for Manners, the conti­nual Seditions of those Pious Hermits, and their implacable Temper, do plainly enough shew that they were infinitely below those great Patterns of the Pagan Antiquity.

8. He Pag. 80. rightly observes, that to design the ruine of the Christian Religion, in a [Page 205]time when the Roman Empire was full of Christians, was to undertake to ruine the Empire it self. When they were but a small number, they might have been ill treated without any danger to the State; but it could not then be done, without causing great Commotions, and too great Disorders in it. It were to be wished that the Imita­tors of Julian had well considered that Ad­vertisement of Gregory, who despises, with great reason, whatever might be good in Julian's Government, if compared with the mischief which so detestable a Design would have been the cause of, if he had been able to execute it. Besides, one could have wish'd that our Age Pag. 83, 84. had been well acquainted with the horror the Christians had for the Snares which Julian laid for his Officers and Soldiers. Gregory says that some Christian Soldiers having, on one day wherein Julian was distributing some Libe­ralities to his Army, thrown Incence into the Fire in his presence, according to an ancient Custom; it had been interpreted, as if they had incens'd the Idols; and having been told of their fault, as they were pray­ing to Christ by making the Sign of the Cross after a Meal, by some who told 'em that they had renounced him, they presently went into the publick Place, and cried even in the Emperor's hearing, that they had [Page 206]been surprized, and were Christians. Julian being angry because they had found out that Surprize, sent 'em into Banishment.

9. Gregory describes Pag. 87, 88. some horrible Cruelties against the Christians, which Julian had either commanded or suffered in Egypt and Syria. He says, that the Inhabi­tants of Arethusa, a Town of Syria, after they had exposed some Virgins consecrated to God to a thousand Infamies, killed them, ate their Liver raw, and threw their Bodies to be eaten by Dogs, having cover'd them with Barley. The same People treated with an abominable Barbarity, the Bishop of that Town, who notwithstanding seemed to be insensible in the midst of Torments. There might be some Exaggerations in this, and Pag. 88. Gregory says, that that Bishop had, in Constans's time, demolished an Ha­bitation of Daemons; that is, a Pagan Temple, according to the Power he had received from the Emperor. That Action of Mark of Arethusa drew on him the Hatred of the People, as a Heathen would have been de­tested by the Christians, if he had pull'd down one of their Churches. Notwith­standing, Gregory says Pag. 97. a little lower, not only that the Christians had not treated the Pagans, as they were treated by them; but he asks them what Liberty the Christians took from them? As if it was nothing to pull [Page 207]down their Temples, as they did Sozom. l. 2. c. 5. since the Empire of Constantine! They went on with the same Rigour, under the following Emperors; and to leave nothing that the Pagans might be upbraided with, they for­bad; on pain of Death, to sacrifice to Idols, with the Applauses of all Christians, if we believe Ep. 48. ad Vincen­tium. St. Augustine. I must not forget here to observe another effect of Gregory's Rhetorick, viz. speaking of the Christian Virgins of Arethusa, who had been so ill treated, he doth not only inveigh against the Pagans, but also addresses himself to our Saviour, by way of Apostrophe, in these words; O Jesus Christ! how shall I suffer the Patience you shewed then?

10. Julian added Pag. 94. Insults to ill Treat­ments; and when he deprived the Chri­stians of their Estates, he said that he only helped them to observe the Gospel, which commands to despise them. That Railery may be seen in Julian's Forty third Letter, where he says, that the Church of the A­rians of Edessus having used them violently, he had confiscated all the Money of that Church, to distribute it to the Soldiers; and kept their other Goods for himself, lest the Arians being too rich, should not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. To which Gregory answers, amongst other things, that Julian, by acting so, must needs have [Page 208]fancied that the Gods of Pagans are well pleased that Men should be deprived of what they have, without having deserved it, and so that they approve Injustice. He might have been content with that Answer; but he adds, That Christ hath commanded some things as necessary, and propounded some others only for those who would ob­serve them, without absolutely obliging any body to do it. Such is (according to Gregory) the Command of forsaking what one hath.

11. One of the things which offended most the Christians of that time, and about which they did not always defend them­selves so well as they might have done, is, their being upbraided by the Pagans with keeping up Ignorance, Pag. 99. since they preached nothing but Faith: You don't reason (said Julian to them,) you are meer Clowns, and all your Wisdom consists in saying, Believe. Gregory answers to that, That if Julian derided the Christians, by reason of that Method, he should also have derided Py­thagoras, whose Disciples were wont to say, when they were ask'd the Reason of something, That Pythagoras had said so, which is all one.— He adds, That the Chri­stians mean only by it, That it is not law­ful to refuse to believe what hath been said by Men Inspired of God; but that they so [Page 209]much deserve to be believed, that that only is a Demonstration of what they say, stronger than the whole Faculty of Rea­soning and Contradicting. — Celsus had raised the same Objection, Origen. in Celsum. p. 8. &c. and laughed at those who said, Examine nothing, but believe. Origen answered, That it was in­deed impossible for the Common People to examine things throughly; and that there was nothing more convenient for them, than to Believe, without knowing why. Such Answers could not very much recom­mend Christianity, nor put the Christians in a Condition of Triumphing over the Pagans, who might have stopt their mouths with like Answers. For, if one must Be­lieve, without knowing why, one may as well believe any thing, though never so ab­surd.

12. Julian having observed that the Church Discipline and good Order among the Christians, did very much contribute to unite them one with another; and to en­crease their number, was resolved to intro­duce them into Paganism. He designed to Pag. 102. set up Schools in every Town, where­in the Pagan Religion and good Manners should be taught; to order publick Prayers and Censures against those who should com­mit some Faults; and to erect Monasteries, and Hospitals where the Poor, Sick, &c. [Page 210]should be taken care of. The Christians had maintained themselves, and encreased, in the midst of Persecutions, by such means which were much more proper to work upon the Common People, than Reason­ing. Those who have writ concerning the manner how Christianity was propagated, have most of them omitted, I know not why, the good Order and constant Charity pra­ctised among them.

13. To make an end of the Extract of that Oration, I shall only say, that Gregory doth afterwards Pag. 103, &c. fall upon the Theology of the Pagans. He is much stronger on this occasion, than when he defends himself; and it seems that he knew much better the weak-side of the Pagan Religion, than the strong one of his own.

I shall further give an Extract of the chief places of his Second Oration against Julian, and then I shall only in general shew the Subject of the other Writings of Gregory, which will be sufficient to know his Genius. That Oration contains in ge­neral the ill Designs of Julian against the Christians, some of his Actions, and his Death.

1 He Orat. iv. p. 111. would favour the Jews, to op­pose them to the Christians, and rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. When the Jews began that Work, there happened, as when [Page 211] Julian himself was building with his Brother Gallus, so great an Earthquake, that they all ran away. As they were going into a neighbouring Temple to secure themselves, the Gates shut themselves of their own mo­tion, as some reported it. But every body, if we believe Gregory, affirmed, that, as they intended to force their entrance into that Temple, some Flames came out of it, which consumed part of them, and lamed the rest. If any miraculous thing happen'd on this occasion, it must be confest, that they took little care to write it faithfully; since History varies so much about it, as one may see by comparing only Socrates and Sozomen with Gregory. However, the latter speaks very positively of that Fire, which came out of the Foundations, or out of the Temple; and to convince altogether Un­believers, he adds, Let no body refuse to believe those Miracles, unless he rejects the other Miracles of God too. That which is most admirable and glorious, is, that a Light was seen in Heaven, which represented the Cross, &c. — The Mi­racle did not stop there; Let those who have seen that Miracle (says Gregory) shew their Cloaths mark'd with the Cross. As soon as any one, either of ours, or a Stranger, related this, or heard some body who related it, he perceived that Wonder [Page 212]either in himself, or those who were by him. He saw it shine in his Cloaths, or in those of others, after a more artificial man­ner than the finest Weaving, or the most exact Picture can represent it. — That Miracle, together with the fore-going, converted an infinite number of People, if we believe Gregory.

2. Afterwards he Pag. 114, &c. describes Julian's March, and Behaviour against the Persians, and his Death, about which they did not agree, some relating it one way, and some another; a variety to be observed not only amongst those who were not at the Fight, where he died, but also amongst those who were in it. Gregory says what he heard concerning it, but he hath not related that was reported about it, as it appears from what Sozomen relates, lib. 4. c. 1, 2. But he forbears especially saying that Li­banius the Sophist accused the Christians of having killed that Emperor. From whence one may learn, that when the Question is about Facts, one ought not to rely too much upon Circumstances. Our Au­thor, who takes advantage of every thing, prefers Constans before Julian, Fag. 118. because Constans his Funeral was better ordered than his Cousin's, and because he was Praised after his Death; whereas the Memory of Julian was abhorred by the Christians. Among [Page 213]the Ceremonies wherewith they honoured that of Constans, Gregory reckons Ibid. the Nocturnal Hymns and Torches, as if Con­stans had been the happier for it after his Death.

3. After having upbraided Julian with his Inconstancy, Covetousness, angry Tem­per, and several other Vices, Pag. 121, &c. he says, that he had foreseen a great while before, when he was at Athens, what others knew by experience of that Emperor. It seem'd to him, that no good thing could be ex­pected from a Man who shook his Head at ever minute, who moved and raised up his Shoulders, who had wandring Eyes, a fu­rious Look, staggering Feet, an insolent Countenance, together with something that was ridiculous, an excessive breaking in laughter, and a broken Voice; who asked impertinent Questions, and returned no better Answers.

When Gregory saw this, he said, in the presence of many Persons, that he wished to prove a false Diviner, but, that the Roman Empire was breeding a great Evil. A Cunaeus Praes. in Caesares. learned Man, whom I have already quoted, could not abide that Gregory should find fault with Julian for some things, which of themselves have no relation with Vertue.

4. Gregory, Pag. 124, 127. who had begged of God that Julian should be punished; as soon as he died, look'd upon the Pagans with Pity, and exhorted the Christians to treat 'em with Mildness; though he rejoyces because the Christian Churches would be no more polluted, the Altars profaned, Things con­secrated to God ravished, Church-men ill treated, the Relicks of Martyrs burnt, &c. Afterwards he insults over the False Gods, and admonishes the Christians not to make an ill use of Prosperity, and to forbeat doing what they reproached to the Pagans. In the beginning of his Pag. 128. Exhortation, he speaks of himself thus, to excite the Atten­tion of the Hearers: Hear the Discourse of a Man who hath not acquired a mean know­ledge of those things, either by the experience of what happens every day, or by the reading of ancient Books, and ancient Histories.

5. However, the greatest Pag. 131. Satisfaction of the Christians, after Julian's Death, was, according to Gregory, that those who had persecuted the Christians, were ridiculed upon the Stage, and in Publick Places and Assemblies. That which is surpri­sing (says he) is, that those who perse­cuted us together with others, do now overthrow, with great Acclamations, the Statues of the Gods, by whom they were so long deceived: These who worshipp'd [Page 215]them yesterday, do now use them op­probriously. — But those who con­tinued in the Heathenish Religion, were un­doubtedly very much offended to see the Statues of their Gods so dealt with, and could not look upon the Christians as mo­derate Men. For certainly those Statues were as dear to them, as the most Sacred Things were to the Christians. Besides, those who changed their Religion, as often as they had a new Emperor, and became so suddenly Enemies to the Gods whom they had worshipped all their life, could not but be very much suspected.

6. Lastly, Gregory having Pag. 183. derided Ju­lian's Speeches and Writings, which not­withstanding are not so contemptible, tells him that he boasts in vain of having never contracted any Crudity by eating too much; since the Harm he had done the Christians, was infinitely greater than the Good which might accrue to the Empire from his So­briety. When one only Man (says he) is troubled with Crudities, and feels the Inconveniences of it, Is the Com­monwealth the worse for it? But the whole Empire must needs suffer upon the account of so violent a Persecution, and so many Troubles. — In effect, the want of Royal Vertues in a Prince, is a greater defect, than to be desti­tute [Page 216]of those which Private Men ought to have.

To return to our History, Gregory having been ordained a Priest against his Will, as hath been already said, resolved to retire into the solitary places of Pontus, without his Father's leave. His Brother Caesarius being then returned from Court, to live with his Parents, helped him to it. In the mean time, his Father being a very Old Man, and no longer able to bear the burthen of a Bishoprick, obliged him to return, to help him. Basil himself endeavoured to persuade him not to deny his Father. He was made a Bishop, to be his Coadjutor, and performed the Episcopal Functions, which his Father was not able to perform. At that time he made the Oration, which is the Fifth in order, wherein he addresses himself to his Father and to Basil, Pag. 136. and says, that he took the Long Habit and Miter at their Sollicitation. 'Tis a hard matter to know whether he pronounced that Com­plement, or was contented to write it down; but he recited before the People the Forty first Oration, which runs upon the same Subject. Not long after, he made the long Apology for his Flight, which is in the beginning of his Works. He sets down at large the Difficulties which attend the [Page 217]Exercise of Episcopacy; and says, that not­withstanding, he was resolved to come, to comply with the Church of Nazianzum and his Parents Desires, who equally wished for his return.

Among the Reasons which had deterred him from Episcopacy and Priesthood, he reckons the shameful manner after which many endeavoured to come to it, though they were never so unworthy of it, and and the multitude of Pretenders. Orat. i. p. 5. They look upon that Dignity (says he) not as an Employment wherein they ought to be Examples of Vertue, but as the means of Maintaining themselves; not as a Mi­nistry, of which they must give an Ac­count; but as a Magistracy, which is liable to no Examination. They are almost more numerous than those whom they govern, &c. And I believe, that the Evil growing worse in time, they'll have no body to govern, but all will be Teachers, and Saul himself shall be seen among the Prophets. — He says, Pag. 21. That ignorant Men and Children were brought into the Pulpits; Pag. 30. That Church-men were not bet­ter than the Scribes and Pharisees; Pag. 33. That no Charity was observed in them, but only Anger and Passion; That their Piety did only consist in condemning the Impiety of other Men, whose Conduct they observed, [Page 218]not to reclaim them, but to defame them; That they blamed or praised Men, not be­cause of their good or bad Life, but accord­ing to the Party which they had embraced; That they admired among themselves, what they sharply censured in another Party; That there was nothing to be seen amongst 'em but Disputes like Night-Fights, wherein Friends are not distinguished from Enemies; That they wrangled about Trifles, on the specious Pretence of defending the Faith: Lastly, That they were abhorred by the Heathens, and despised by good Men among the Christians. This is a true Picture of the Lives of the Ecclesiasticks in his time, as it doth but too plainly appear by the History of that time. It's an unlucky thing, that those of our time are so much like them, that were it not known from whence those Complaints come, one would be apt to look upon them as a Picture of our Modern Divines.

Another Difficulty which attended the Ex­ercise of Episcopacy, consisted in discoursing well of the Mysteries of Christianity, and e­specially of the Pag. 16. Holy Trinity; concerning which, according to Gregory, a medium ought to be kept between the Jews, who acknow­ledge but One God; and the Pagans, who worship Many: A Medium which Sabellius did not keep, by making the same God, con­sidered [Page 219]under several Relations, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; nor Arius, by maintain­ing that they are of different Natures. As for him, he believed (as we have already seen, and as he repeats it here and in many other places) that he kept that wished for Medium, by establishing Three Principles Equal in Perfection, though the Father be the Principle of the Son and Holy Spirit.

It seems that Gregory had not been long his Father's Coadjutor, when his Brother Caesarius died. 'Twas not long after the Earthquake which happen'd in Bithynia, in October, in the Year 368. He was then at Orat. x. p. 169. Nice, where he exercised the Office of Questor, or the Emperor's Treasurer. That City was almost altogether ruined, and he was the only Officer of Valens who saved himself from that Danger. Gregory made a Funeral Oration in his Praise, which is the Tenth of those that are extant. He makes a short Description of his Life, the chief Circumstances of which I have related; describes the Vanity of whatever we enjoy here; and makes several Observations upon Death, and the manner of comforting one's self upon the Death of one's Relations. He wishes that his Brother may be in Pag. 168. Abra­ham's Bosom, whatever it may be: And to­wards the Pag. 173. end, describing the Happiness of Good Men after Death, he says, that [Page 220]according to Wise Men, their Souls are full of Joy, in the Contemplation of their future Happiness, until they are received into the Heavenly Glory after the Resurrection. Caesarius had given his Estate to the Poor at his Death, yet notwithstanding they had much ado to save it; those who were at his death having feized the greatest part of it, as Gregory complains in his Eighteenth Letter, whereby he desires Sophronius Go­vernor of Bithynia to use his Authority in it.

Basil, Gregory's Friend, having been made Bishop of Caesarea, Vid. Pagi Crit. ad hunc ann. in the Year 370, had some difference with Valens, which I shall not mention here, because it doth not at all relate to the Life of his Friend. This was perhaps the reason that moved that Em­peror to divide Cappadocia into Two Pro­vinces, and to make Tyane the Metropolis of the Second Cappadocia. Forasmuch as the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitans reached as far as the extent of the Province, several Bishops who were before Suffragan of Cae­sarea, became Suffragan of Tyane; so that Basil saw himself at the head of a lesser num­ber of Bishops than before. Orat. xx. p. 456. The new Metropolitan drew to himself the Provin­cial Assemblies, ceased the Revenues of his Diocess, and omitted nothing to lessen the Authority and Revenues of Basil. Anthimus [Page 221](such was the Bishop of Tyane's Name) who was an Arian, shelter'd himself under the pretence of Piety, and said that he could not give up the Flocks to Basil's In­struction, whose Opinions concerning the Son of God were not right, nor suffer that any Tribute should be paid to Hereticks. Gregory assures us, that he got some Soldiers to stop Basil's Mules, to hinder him from receiving his Rents. Basil found no other remedy to it, but to make new Bishops, who should have a greater care of the Flocks than he could have; and by whose means, every Town should carefully receive what was due to them. Sasime being one of those Towns in which he was resolved to put some Bishops, he cast his Eyes upon his Friend Gregory, to send him to it, without considering that that Place was altogether unworthy of a Person of such Merit: 'Twas a Greg. de Vita sua, p. 7. little Town, without Water and Grass, and full of Dust; a Passage for Soldiers, and inhabited only by some few poor Men. The Income of that Bishoprick was very small; and besides, he must either resolve to defend it by Force against Anthymus, or submit to that new Metropolitan. Gregory refused that Employment; but at length the Importunity and Dexterity of Basil, who wrought upon Gregory's Father, obliged him to accept of it.

It seems, that about that time he made his Seventh Oration, wherein he addresses himself to his Father and Basil, and desires their Help and Instruction to govern his new Church at Sasime. Notwithstanding▪ he says freely enough to Basil, that the Episcopal Throne had made a great Alteration in him, and that he was much milder when he was among the Sheep, than since he was a Pastor.

The next day, he made Orat. vi. another Oration on the Arrival of Gregory Nyssen, Basil's Brother, to whom he further complains of the violence his Brother had done him▪ and because 'twas a Day of some Martyr's Feast, he adds several things on that occa­sion, concerning the Manner of Celebrating Holy-days, not with Profane Rejoycing, but Pious Exercises. He says, amongst other things, That 'tis then time to raise one's self, and become God ( [...]) if one may so say, and that the Martyrs per­form therein the Office of Mediators ( [...].) — That Expression, to become God, instead of, to become a Good Man, and despise Earthly things, doth often occur in Gregory's Writings. He says else­where, That the Priests Orat. i. p. 31. & Orat. xxiii. p. 410. are Gods, and Deifie other Men; Orat. ii. p. 46. That Solitude Deify's. Introducing Orat. xx. p. 349. Basil, who refused to embrace Arianism, he makes him say, That he [Page 223]could not worship a Creature, he who was a Creature of God too, and had received a Commandment of being God. — It ought to be observed, that that Expres­sion was used among the Pythagoreans; as may be seen by the last Golden Verse of Pythagoras, upon which Hierocles may be consulted.

When Gregory came to Sasime, the misery of that Place made him believe that Basil despised him, and abused altogether his Friendship. Though he took upon him the Government of it for a little time, yet he exercised no Episcopal Function in it. He did not Pray publickly with the People, nor lay his Hands on any body. Forasmuch as he went thither against his Will, and without engaging himself to stay there, he thought he might leave that Church, and return into the Solitary Place out of which they took him, when he came to Nazi­anzum. He Ep. 31, 32. & de Vita sua, p. 7. & a­libi. complained sharply of Basil's Pride, whom the Episcopal Throne of Cae­sarea had so blinded, that he had no more any regard to his Friends. Those Com­plaints, tho' never so just, were look'd upon as a Rebellion, by the Metropolitan; who seemed to have forgot the Esteem he former­ly had for Gregory, and the Services the latter had done him, in his Promotion to the See of Caesarea. Yet Gregory continued to com­plain [Page 224]that he had been shamefully dealt with by his Friend.

Gregory having left Sasime, Greg. Presb. in ejus Vita, p, 14. retired into an Hospital of Sick Men, whom he took care to consolate; and his Father desired him, in vain, to return to Sasime; he could never resolve himself to do it, nor brook the Unkindness of Basil, who out of fifty Bishopricks, which were in his Diocess, had given him the least. All that Gregory the Father could obtain from his Son, was, that he should re-assume the care of the Bishop­rick of Nazianzum during his Life, Ep. xlii. & Orat. viii. with­out engaging himself to succeed him.

It seems that at that time, a Commissary of the Emperor, who had been a very good Friend of Gregory, came to Tax the Inhabitants of Nazianzum: They fearing he would not Tax them ac­cording to Equity, obliged Gregory to make the Discourse which is his Ninth Oration, wherein he exhorts Men of all Conditions to Piety, and addresses himself to Julian, who was the Emperor's Com­missary, to induce him to lay that Tax like an Honest Man. Yet there happened a Tumult at Nazianzum, which exaspe­rated the Imperial Commissary, and gave Gregory occasion to pronounce his Seventeenth Oration, which is upon the same Subject, and wherein he exhorts the [Page 225]People to Patience, and the Commissary to Moderation.

'Tis also believed that his Sister Gorgonia, who married a Man of Quality, whose Name was Vitalian, died about this time. Gregory made her Funeral Oration, which is the Eleventh in order. I shall not men­tion the Praises he bestows upon her, upon the account of her Piety, and wise Con­duct. I shall only observe these Two things: 1st. That Gorgonia Orat. xi. p. 188. was Baptised with her Husband but a little while before she died, according to the Custom of that time. Her Brother did so much esteem her Piety, that he doth not stick to say, that there is scarce any body else to whom Baptism was rather a Seal than a Grace; that is to say, rather a Confirmation of the Vertue she had be­fore, than the Infusion of new Holiness. 2. At the end of his Oration, having said, in his Address to her by a Rhetorical Fi­gure, very frequent in our Author, that she enjoys the Contemplation of the Heavenly Glory, he goeth on thus; If you have any regard to us, and if God hath given to Holy Souls the Privilege of perceiving such things, receive our Oration rather than Funeral Gifts. It appears from thence, that he doubted whether the Souls of Dead Men know what's done here. One may also observe, that the word which I have rendred Privi­lege, [Page 226] [...] Hes. Opera & Dies vers. 125. is the same which Hesiod uses, when he says that Jupiter hath given to Kings the Advantage of being after their death the Guardians of Men.

In the Year 371, Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria being dead, Gregory Orat. xxi. made his Funeral Oration, some Years after, V. p. 376. being at Constantinople. I shall say something of it, when I come to that part of Gregory's Life.

In the Year 374, Gregory made another Funeral Oration, in Praise of his Father, which is the Nineteenth in order. He says that he died, being almost a Hundred Years old, having been a Bishop Five and forty Years. His Son makes his Panegyrick at large, by giving an Abridgment of his Life; and endeavours to consolate his Mo­ther Nonna, whom he also praises very much. He addresses himself to his Father, Orat. xix. p. 314. whom he desires to let him know what Glory he was in, and to govern both the Flocks and Pastors, of which he was named the Father, and especially his Son. — Here he uses no word which may excuse so violent a Figure as that Pro­sopoeia is; and had he not used elsewhere some softening words in the like occasions, it would perhaps be a difficult thing to di­stinguish that Apostrophe from a true Invo­cation.

His Mother Nonna, who was almost as Pag. 315. old as her Husband, died soon after; and it was not necessary that Gregory should make any Discourse to her Praise, because he had already made her Panegyrick, in the Funeral Oration of his Father. After the death of the latter, they would oblige him to take upon him the Bishoprick of Na­zianzum; and 'twas pretended that he had engaged himself to keep it, when he began to take care of it. But Ep. xlii. he excused him­self, because of his Old Age; and the Bi­shops of the Province named Eulalius to succeed his Father; and because 'twas re­ported that that Election was made against Gregory's Will, he wrote to Gregory Nyssen, to let him know that there was nothing done in it but at his desire.

Forasmuch as things were not presently brought to that issue, and Gregory Carmen de Vit. p. 9. was afraid that he should be forced to stay at Nazianzum, he retired to Seleucia in a Mo­nastery, where he staid long enough, till the Church of Nazianzum should be pro­vided. However, he returned to that Town before the Election was made; and he was again urged to take his old station, but he would never do it. The Author of his Life assures, that Basil built at this time an Hospital for those that were sick of the Leprosie, and that Gregory made on that [Page 228]occasion his 'Tis the Sixteenth Oration. Discourse concerning Charity towards the Poor, especially towards those that are sick of the Leprosie. That Oration contains several Reflexions concerning Piety in general, and the use of the Good things and Evils of this Life. Gregory doth seldom confine himself to one Subject only, and observe an Order clear and free from Di­gressions.

During the Empire of Valens, who fa­voured the Arians, that Sect, and those that sprung out of it, did very much en­crease. Carmen de Vita sua, p. 10. Constantinople especially was full of Arians and Apollinarists, who believed that the Divinity of Christ was instead of a Soul to his Body. Whereupon several Bishops, and many amongst the People, who followed the Council of Nice, obliged Gregory to go to Constantinople, to confirm the Orthodox, and oppose the Hereticks. He says that he undertook that Journey against his will, especially because 'twas reported that there was to be a Synod made up of Apollinarists, to establish their Opi­nion.

Being arrived at Constantinople, Orat. 28. p. 484. † to­wards the end of the Year 378, he lodged at a Kinsman's of his, whom some Authors conjecture to have been Nicobulus, who had marry'd Alypiane Daughter of Gorgonia, Gregory's Sister. Valens had given to the [Page 229] Arians all the Churches of Constantinople, so that Gregory was obliged to Preach at his Kinsman's House. There was soon after so great a concourse of People, that that House having no Chamber that might hold them, the Owner of it pull'd it down to make a Church of it. Orat. 32. p. 527. It was named Anastasis, that is, the Church of the Resur­rection; because the Orthodox Faith had been, as it were, raised in that Place. Then the Arians stirred up almost the whole City against him, by accusing him of believing Three Gods. He ascribes the Zeal of the People against him, to their ignorance of the manner how to reconcile the Trinity with the Unity of God. It was not alto­gether the People's fault; because Gregory himself speaks of it so as to make one be­lieve that he introduced what we should call Three Gods, according to the common way of speaking; though, according to his manner of defining the Unity, it must be said he believed but One. He complains, that they threw Carm. de Vita, p. 10, 11. Stones at him, upon that account, and that he was summoned before the Judges as a Seditious Person.

All that helped to make him more Fa­mous, and encrese the number of his Ad­mirers. 'Twas then that St. Jerom heard him, as he said in Ep. ad Ne­pot. Catal. Script. Ec­cles. cont. Jovinian. lib. 1. several places. I have quoted elsewhere a Passage out of that [Page 230]Father, wherein he gives but an ill Cha­racter of Gregory's Eloquence, whom he de­scribes as a Declamator, and whom the People applauded, without understanding what he said.

The number of the Orthodox encreasing every day, they desired to have a Bishop of their Opinion, and generally cast their Eyes upon Gregory. The Eastern Orthodox Bishops, especially Meletius of Antioch, Basil of Caesarea, and Peter of Alexandria, did openly favour him. Yet they succeeded not in their Design.

There was at Alexandria Carm. de Vita sua, p. 12. one Maximus, a Profest Cynick, and yet a Christian. He pre­tended to be desoended from a Noble Family, and in which there had been some Martyrs. After the Death of Athanasius; the Orthodox having been persecuted in Egypt, he had been banished into a Village of the Wilderness of Thebais, named Oasis. He went drest like the Philosophers, that is, with a ragged Cloak on his Back; he never cut his Hair, nor shaved his Beard, and went with a Stick, as Diogenes. Thus living a very austere life, he took upon himself to censure every body's Vices, with­out any regard to any one's Quality, as the Ancient Cynicks did. Yet under that severe Out-side, and mortified Countenance, there lay a Soul Deceitful, Ambitious, Malicious, Covetous, and full of the most shameful [Page 231]Passions. But because those things appeared not to the Eyes of Men, he got a great Re­putation, not only among the People, but also among the most learned Men. He kept Correspondence with the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory's Friend, Basil. Ep. 41. & 42. as it ap­pears from two Letters of Basil, which are directed to him.

Gregory received him so well, at his ar­rival at Constantinople, that he made an Ora­tion in his Praise, Orat. 23. wherein he omits no­thing that might contribute to make that Impostor be look'd upon as a Great and Good Man. But having since found out his Cheat, Hieron. in Cat. in Greg. instead of the Name Maximus, which was prefix'd to that Oration, he put that of Heron, and entitled it thus; An Ora­tion in the Praise of Heron a Philosopher of Alexandria, sent into Exile because of the Faith, and returned three Years after. Gregory shews, in that Discourse, what use might be made of the Cynick Philosophy, in the Christian Religion; and mentions the Persecutions which the Princes who fa­vour'd Arianism had exercised against the Orthodox, especially in Egypt, and against the Philosopher Maximus. He concludes with explaining the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, and exhorting his Philosopher con­stantly to persevere in the Sound Doctrine, which kept a medium between Judaism [Page 232]and * Arianism. Pag. 425, &c. He often makes that Ob­servation, when he mentions the Holy Tri­nity; and one may observe in general, by reading his Works, that the same Thoughts do frequently occur. He advises his Philo­sopher to despise the Objections that are raised against that Doctrine, and bids him not be ashamed of the Charge of Tritheism, whilst others (the Arians and Macedo­nians) run the hazard of establishing Two Gods; for (says he) either you'll resolve the Difficulty as they do, or you will not be able to resolve it no more than they, &c.

Gregory having thus made the Pane­gyrick of Maximus, received him at his House, Instructed, Baptized and Ordained him, and imparted to him his most secret Thoughts. Carm. de Vita sua, p. 12, &c. But as soon as Maximus thought himself Learned enough, he saw with grief that they designed to make Gre­gory Bishop of Constantinople. He thought he deserved that Station better than his Master and Benefactor; and perceiving that one of the Chief Priests of that Church en­vied also Gregory that Dignity, he joined with him to cross him. In order to it, Maximus got on his side Peter of Alexan­dria, who before favoured Gregory. Some time after, the Corn Fleet, which came every year from Alexandria to Constanti­nople, [Page 233]arrived there; and the Masters of the Ships Hammon, Aphammon, Harpocras, Steppas, Rhodon, Anubis and Hermanubis, joined presently with Gregory's Assembly, though they had Orders to favour the De­sign of Maximus, whom two or three Egyptian Bishops designed to uphold more vigorously afterwards. In the mean time, the arrival of the Egyptians, and the care they took to join with Gregory, rejoyced him so much, that he made Orat. 24. an Oration thereupon, wherein he doth very much extoll the Piety and Constancy of those of Alexandria, and explains to them his Opi­nion concerning the Equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He doth especially enlarge to prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit; and among other Reasons, he uses this Argument, the Terms whereof would seem strange, had I not already observed the like before: Pag. 429. If the Holy Spirit is not God, let him be made God first, and then let him make me God equal to him in Honour. The meaning of that harsh Expression seems only to be this, viz. that if the Holy Spirit is not God, he cannot sanctifie Men, which Gregory styles elsewhere, to make Men Gods.

Some learned Men conjecture that about the same time Gregory made the Panegyrick of St. Athanasius, which is his One and twen­tieth Oration. He displays in it not only [Page 234]the Vertues of the Bishop of Alexandria, but also relates at large the Persecutions he suffered, and the Troubles that happen'd during his life. He praises him especially for his Orthodoxy and Constancy in the defence of the Truth: All those (says Pag. 394. he) who profest our Doctrine, were divided into Three Parties-Some did not think well of the Son, and worse yet of the Holy Spirit: Those who had a sound Be­lief in those two Points, were very few: He was the first and only Man who durst openly publish the Truth, or at least he was seconded by very few People. — Gregory gives also St. Athanasius Pag. 395. the Glory of having brought to an Agreement the Eastern and Western Churches, which dis­puting only about Words, yet look'd upon one another as Hereticks: We said, agree­ably to the Doctrine of Godliness, that there is One Essence, and Three Existences (Hypostases,) the Former relating to the Nature of the Deity; and the Second, to the Properties of the Three. The Bishops of Italy apprehended it so; but because of the scantiness of their Tongue, they could not distinguish the Hypostasis from the Essence, (because the Latin Churches Hieron. in Ep. ad Da­mas. T. 2. p. 13. Ed. Gryph. ren­der'd the word Hypostasis Substance;) and they introduced the word Person, lest it should seem they acknowledge Three Es­sences. [Page 235]What followed from it? Some­thing ridiculous, or rather, that deserves Pity. A meer Dispute about Words, was look'd upon as a Dispute concerning the Faith. Those who said that there are Three Persons, were suspected (in the East) of Sabellianism; and those who mention'd Three Hypostases, were suspected (in the West) of Arianism. Such was the effect of those Disputes, &c.) St. Athanasius remedied it, by mildly conversing with every Party, and carefully examining the sences of the words which they used; and as soon as he perceived that the Eastern and Western Bishops were of the same Opinion as to the thing, and differed only in Expressions; he allowed the use of dif­ferent Terms, and re-united them as to the Substance of the Doctrine.

To return Carm. de Vit. p. 14, &c. to Maximus, his Party grew stronger, by the arrival of his Country­men, in the Year 379; and the better to engage the Bishops of that Country to serve him, he sent to them considerable Presents. Wherefore, he borrowed some Money of a Priest who was lately come from Thassus, an Island of the Archipelago, with Orders to buy at Constantinnple some Marble, and other Materials for a Church, which they design'd to build in that Island. Not long after that, Gregory being indisposed, went [Page 236]out of Constantinople, to take the Air, and so gave occasion to the Bishops to go very early to his Church, and to place Maximus upon the Episcopal See. They could not make an end of the Ceremony of that Cynicks Ordination, before it was noised about in the City. Whereupon the Magi­strates of Constantinople, the Clergy, and the People, without excepting the Arians them­selves, went in a Crowd to the Anastasis, and turned those Bishops out of the Church. They retired into a Play-house that was hard by, where they cut his Hair, and Con­secrated him. Which did but exasperate the People, who gave Maximus all sort of ill Language, and blamed Gregory for having too kindly received that wicked Man into his House.

Gregory having notice of what past, re­turned presently to Constantinople, and made that Oration, which is the Twenty-eighth in order; wherein he says, that he was gone out of Town with some repug­nancy, and that the little time he had been absent, had but encreased his Love for his Flock. He doth again shew the Perfidious­ness of Maximus, and those of his Party; to which he adds a Description of a true Christian Philosopher. He excuses himself for his having been deceived by Maximus; because Good Men being not Suspicious, he [Page 237]could not suspect that that Philosopher would deceive him. Lastly, He says, that he is ready to leave the Episcopal See, and that he never desired it. He mixes several general Reflexions in that Discourse, and seems to prepare himself to Patience, by the Consideration of the Miseries of this Life. It appears that he was an Old Man, because he says that Maximus Pag. 483. would per­haps upbraid him with his Old Age, and want of Health; which is contrary to the Opi­non of those who believe that Gregory was born about the time of the Council of Nice.

Indeed, Gregory's Return got him the People on his side, and obliged Maximus to leave the City, but not to give over his Design. It seems that he wrote to the Ep. Am­bros. & Epp. Italiae ad Theod. Imp. Conc. T. 2. col. 1007. Bishops of the Italick Diocess, met in a Synod at Aquileia, to whom he imparted the News of his Election, which had been approved by the Communicatory Letters of Peter of Alexandria, which he sent to them, to be read in their Council. He confest he had been Ordained in a Private House; but he said it was because the Arians had seized all the Churches, and that he was forced to give way to their Violence. The Council, who knew not the Circum­stances, approved his Ordination, thinking that Gregory's Promotion was not according [Page 238]to the Canons; because a Bishop was not allowed to leave one Church, and settle himself in another. Their Approbation of Maximus's Ordination was also the reason why they refused since to Communicate with Nectarius his Successor, and wrote to the Emperor to desire him to have an eye to it, and to restore Maximus; or to call a General Council at Rome, to examine that Business. Damasus Bishop of Rome disap­paoved also Gregory's Election, who, ac­cording to the Canons, should have stay'd at Sasime, since it was not lawful for a Bishop In Col­lect. Rom. Holsten. p. 37. to leave the People committed to his Charge, to remove to another out of Am­bition, which breeds Quarrels and Schisms. Thus he speaks of it in a Letter written to some Bishops of Egypt, wherein he also blames Mavimus's Election, as being con­trary to the Canons. He wrote Ibid. p. 43. further to Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica against the same, and exhorted him to endeavour to get a Catholick Bishop established at Con­stantinople. It appears from thence, that Gregory's leaving Sasime, had offended several People; and perhaps he was somewhat too Nice, for one who was so little addicted to the World, as he himself says he was. Be­sides, his resolving to go to Constantinople, after he had despised Sasime, was a thing that might raise Suspicions in the Mind of [Page 239]ill-affected Persons. 'Tis not to be doubted but Maximus did maliciously make use of all that, to ruine Gregory's Reputation; and this perhaps emboldened him to go to Thessalonica, to desire Theodosius to restore him by an Edict. But he was so far from obtaining what he desired, that the Em­peror ordered him with Threatnings to give over his Pursuits. Being enraged at his having missed his aim, he went to Alexan­dria; where having drawn some People to his Party, he threatned Peter Bishop of that City to deprive him of his Place, if he he did not help him to invade the Bishoprick of Constantinople. The Governor of Alex­andria having had notice of this Insolence, and being afraid that the Cynick would cause some Disturbance, banish'd him out of the City; and History doth not tell us what became of him afterwards.

Gregory being thus got rid of Maximus, was now exposed to the Arian Faction, which endeavoured to cry him down, by ridiculing his Countrey and Relations. Be­sides, they accused him of ill Humour, Carelesness, and other like Defects. But because those Reproaches were either ill grounded, or inconsiderable, he easily justi­fied himself, as may be seen in his Twenty-fifth Oration. That which did him the greatest Prejudice, is, that though he was [Page 240]great Orator, according to the manner of the Age he lived in, yet he was not really fit to do a thousand other things necessary to maintain himself against the Arians. He should have made his Interest at Court, and got the Favour of the Grandee's, to pro­mote the Interest of his Church: But this he was not capable of, having spent the greatest part of his Life in Study and Quiet. Hence it is that that Priest, who had fa­voured Maximus (as I have said) drew several Catholicks to himself, who began to say that Gregory was not capable of well performing the Episcopal Duties; which required no less Experience and Skill in Af­fairs, than Eloquence and Learning.

Gregory was so weary of the Complaints and Crosses of those Men, that one day De Vita sua, p. 17, 18. he undertook to take his leave of his People. But he had no sooner said that he would go, than that the whole Assembly did so earnestly desire him not to leave them, and not to suffer the Orthodox Doctrine to perish by the Arians Endeavours, after his departure; that at last he was persuaded to stay till the Eastern Bishops, who were to meet shortly, as 'twas reported, would chuse another to fill up the Episcopal See of Constantinople.

Such was the state of Affairs, until the arrival of Theodosius at Constantinple, the [Page 241]22d. of Vid. Pagt ad hunc Ann. n. 7. November. 380. That Emperor had been lately Baptized at Thessalonica, by Acholius an Orthodox Bishop, who had in­spired him with the Design of restoring the Nicene Faith. He had already ordered, be­ing at Thessalonica, C. Th. l. 16. T. 1. c. 2. by an Edict bearing date the 27th. of February, That all his Subjects should have such a Belief concerning the Holy Trinity, as they had at Rome and Alexandria; That those who would profess it, should be called Catholicks, and the others Hereticks; That the Assemblies of the latter should not be called Churches: and, That they should be liable to Civil Punishments, as well as to the Divine Ven­geance. Being at Constantinople, and having observed the great multitude of Heterodox, of which that City was full, he published yet a more severe Edict Ibid. T. 5. l. 6. the 10th. of January, in the Year 381, whereby he annuls all those which might have allowed the Hereticks some liberty, and takes from them all the Churches they had in the Towns, ordering them to restore 'em to those who followed the Nicene Faith. Af­terwads he sent word So [...] at l. [...]. c. [...]. So [...] 7. c. [...]. to Demophilus, an Arian Bishop, to subscribe to the Council of Nice, or to resolve to leave the Churches of Constantinople. Demophilus did the latter without any Hesitation, and told the People that the next day they should meet out of [Page 242]the City. Thus the Arians were deprived of the Publick Churches, which they had kept Forty Years. De Vita sua, p. 20, &c. Notwithstanding, Theodosius was accused of want of Zeal, and they would would have him use Violence, to reduce the Arians, (as Gregory says;) though he doth not approve the Heat of those who found fault with Theodosius's Con­duct upon that account, and declares him­self against those who pretend to force the Conscience.

The Emperor having sent for Gregory, received him very kindly, and told him he was going to put him in possession of the Cathedral of Constantinople. Lest the People, the greatest part whereof followed the Opinions of Arius, should rise up, Theo­dosius sent some Soldiers to seize the Church of the Apostles; and sent Gregory to it, at­tended with some others, through the midst of the People, who cried on every side, and were as much afflicted as if Con­stantinople had been taken; which could not be a pleasant Spectacle to a wise and moderate Bishop. Though the Sun was up, it was so clouded, that one would have thought it was Night; but the Sun shone all of a sudden, when Gregory came to Church. That Circumstance should not deserve to be taken notice of, were it not that our Bishop relates it as an extraordinary [Page 243]thing; having said, Carm. de Vita sua, p. 22. That though he is one of those who are most opposite to such Thoughts; yet he believes 'tis better to believe all things, than to re­fuse to believe what is said. — As soon as they came to Church, all the People that were in it, cried out, they would have Gregory to be their Bishop. He silenced them, getting a Priest to tell them, that they ought not to cry, but to give Thanks to God. As for the rest, he was threatned with no danger, except that one Man only drew his Sword, which he presently put up into its Scabboard.

But though the Arians had yielded their Churches, yet they murmured about it among themselves, and were angry because they had been turned out. Gregory believed, with great reason, that the Heterodox might be wrought upon by Mildness, which he more willingly used than the Emperor's Authority. He complains, That a Com­pany of wretched Young men call'd Mildness Cowardice, gave to Fury the name of Courage, and would have the Arians to be exasperated and inflamed with Anger.

The Moderation of Gregory was not un­pleasant to Theodosius, who sometimes sent for him, Carm. 10. T. 2. p. 80. and made him eat at his Table. Notwithstanding, our Bishop went seldom [Page 244]to Court, Carm. de Vita sua, p. 23. though the others were con­stantly there, to be in the Emperor's or his Officers Favour; and made use of Piety, as a pretence to raise themselves, and ruine their Enemies. Forasmuch as he was Old, and of a Weak Constitution, he was often indisposed; which his Enemies ascribed to too great a Delicacy. As he was once in his Bed, they sent a Man to kill him; who moved with repentance, confest to him, at the feet of his Bed, that they had incited him to commit that Crime; the Pardon of which he presently obtained.

As for the Revenues of the Church, Gregory says, that having not been able to find any Account of them, neither among the Papers of those who had been Bishops of Constantinople before him, nor among those to whom the care of gathering them was committed; he would not meddle with them, and took nothing out of them, to avoid giving an account of them.

Theodosius called at that time a Council at Constantinople, either to condemn several Heresies, or to settle Gregory Canonically in the Episcopal See of that City. But before I relate what past with respect to Gregory, it will not be amiss to say something of the Orations he made whilst he was at Constan­tinople, and which are extant.

Basil Bishop of Caesarea Vid. Pagi ad An. 378. n. 1. being dead on the First Day of the Year 380, Gregory made an Orat. 20. Oration in his Praise some time after; having not been able to pay that last Duty to his Friend as soon as he could have wished. He praises Basil's Ancestors, who were Persons of Quality, and besides, Christians for a long time. He says, that Pag. 319. during Maximin's Persecution, some of Basil's Ancestors having retired into a Forest of Pontus, without any Provision, and without Arms to go a Hunting, they prayed to God that he would send them some of the Fowls, or a little of the Venison, which they saw in that Wood; and God presently sent 'em a great number of the fattest Stags, who seemed to be grieved because they had not called them sooner. Gregory de­lights in that Subject, according to the Custom of the Pagan Orators, who did the same with respect to the Fables of Paganism: The worst of all, is, that it makes one suspect the other Relations of Gregory.

2. Afterwards, he gives a short Account of Basil's Life, and insists upon every Parti­cular, according to his custom, with a great deal of Exaggeration, many Figures, and Moral Observations. Speaking of the manner after which he himself had spent his Life, he says, that he wishes Pag. 333. his Affairs [Page 246]may better prosper hereafter, by the Inter­cessions of Basil.

3. The manner of getting Pag. ib. Church-Preferments in his time, was not more Ca­nonical than the Means which are now-a­days made use of for the same end, if we believe Gregory.

Having said, that in other Professions Men raised themselves only by degrees, and according to their Capacity, he assures, That the Chief Dignity was got as much by Crimes as by Vertue; and that Epis­copal Sees were not for those who deserved them best, but for the most Powerful, &c. No body takes the Name of a Physician, or a Painter, before he hath studied the Nature of Diseases, well mixed his Colours, and made several Pictures; but a Bishop may be easily found, not after he hath been carefully formed, but upon the spot, as the Fable feigneth, That the Giants were no sooner sowed, but they sprung out of the Earth. We make The Bi­shops were then called Saints, as now-a­days Lords. SAINTS in one day, and we exhort to Wisdom those who have not learn'd to be Wise, and who have brought nothing to perform well the Episcopal Duties, but the Desire of being Bishops.

4. Gregory ascribes to Basil Pag. 340, & 358. some Mo­nastical Laws, and written Prayers. We have the former still, without any great [Page 247]alteration; but the Liturgy which bears his Name hath been very much alter'd since.

5. He not only praises his Friend, but also makes his Apology against those who ac­cused him of Pride, (of which notwith­standing he himself accuses him in several places,) Pag. 364. and suspected he did not believe the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, because he had not stiled him God, in his Book. Gre­gory says that Basil did so, for fear of exaspe­rating the Hereticks, who could not abide that that Title should be bestowed upon the Holy Spirit, because the Scripture doth not ascribe it to him; but that he had said some­thing equivalent to it, which was the same thing; since Words do not save us, but Things.

6. Lastly, Having described Basil's Fu­neral, he goes on thus; Pag. 372. He is now in Heaven, where he offers, as I think, Sa­crifices for us, and prayeth for the People; for when he left us, he did not altogether forsake us, &c. He advises me still, and chides me in Night-Visions, when I de­part in something from my Duty. — At the end of his Oration, he addresses him­self to him, and asks his Help in energick terms, as if he heard him; though he seemed to doubt whether he was in Heaven, that is, in the Place of greatest Bliss; into [Page 248]which the Antients believed no body went, except Martyrs, but after the Resurrection, (as we have already seen by another Pas­sage of Gregory.)

There is some likelyhood that he com­posed at Constantinople most of the other Orations which are extant, which I have not mention'd yet, especially those which he made against the Arians; wherein he hath been thought to have so well defended the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, as well as in his other Writings, that for that rea­son they have given him the Title of Theologue. One may read especially his Thirty third Oration, and the Four follow­ing, upon that Subject. In order to give an Idaea of those Five Orations, I shall ob­serve, that the Design of the First, is to shew, that it doth not belong to All to dispute about Religion, and that it ought not to be done before every body, neither at all times, nor with too great a heat. He censures the Hereticks, as if they had no regard to any of those things, and preaches some common places which all Parties have always equally made use of. He complains, Orat. 33. p 535. That they make Saints the very same day they go about it; That they chuse Divines, as if they had inspired them with Learning, and, That they make a great ma­ny Assemblies of Ignoramus's and Babblers. [Page 249]Forasmuch as he knew that some Men can't forbear Disputing, he tells 'em, to satisfie their Desire, that he will give them a large Field, in which they may exercise them­selves without danger: Ib. p. 536. Philosophize (says he) about the World or Worlds, the Soul, Rational Creatures less or more Excellent, about the Resurrection, the Judgments, the Rewards, the Sufferings of Christ. 'Tis not an useless thing to succeed in those Matters, as there is no great danger in being mistaken about them. — Christians have been since of a very different Opinion; and 'tis certain, that one may fall into dangerous Errors, and that there hath been real Mistakes about those Articles.

In the Orat. 34. Second Oration, he comes to the Matter in hand, and doth chiefly en­large to prove against the Eunomians the Incomprehensibility of God, which he doth often. He shews, that there is an infinite number of things in Nature, which we do not comprehend, to conclude from thence, that 'tis no good Reasoning, to deny that something is in God, only because we do not comprehend it.

Having thus prepared the Mind of his Reader, or Hearer, he proposes his Opinion concerning the Divinity of the Son, Orat. 35. p. 562. and the Holy Trinity in general, which he doth [Page 250]in these remarkable terms: That which we worship is a Monarchy. I don't call Monarchy, what is possest by one Person only, (for it may happen, that a Person not agreeing with himself, produces the same effect as if there were many,) but what is grounded upon the Equality of Nature, the Consent of the Will, the same Motion, and the same Design, with respect to the things which that Monarchy pro­duces, (which is not possible in Created Natures;) so that although those that compose that Monarchy differ in Number, yet they differ not in Power. — Had Gregory believed the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence, he would have spoken very weakly and obscurely; since instead of the Equality of the Nature, he should should have said the Identity, and not men­tion'd the Consent of Will, but One only Will in Number. In that Oration, Gregory an­swers the Objections which the Arians raised against the Eternal Generation of the Son, which are often very weak, either because they are not well propounded, or because the Arians argued not better. However, as one might Personate an Arian better; so so one might perhaps maintain with greater advantage the Sentiments of the Council of Nice.

Among the Arian Objections which Gre­gory proposes to himself, this is one of them, which is the Eighth; viz. Pag. 569. That if the Son is, as to the Essence, altogether as the Father is; it will follow, that the Son is not Begotten, as the Father is not. — Gregory answers not, as the School-men do, That the Son is not Begotten, as to the Essence, which is the same in Number with the Fathers, as he should have said accord­ing to the Principles of the Modern Schools; but that not to be Begotten, is not a thing Essential to the Deity. To which he adds; Are you the Father of your Father, that you may not be inferiour to him in any thing; because you are the same thing as to the Essence? — If any one should doubt still, whether the Ʋnity which our Orator speaks of, is a Specifick or a Nume­rical one, he needs only read these words, which are at the bottom of the following Page; Pag. 570. This is our Doctrine, As we judge alike of things which are under the same Species, as a Horse, an Oxe, and a Man, and every thing is properly called by the Name which suits the Nature of which it partakes, whereas that which doth not par­take of it, doth not go by that Name, or hath it but improperly: so there is but One Essence and Nature in God, which hath the same Name; though the Per­sons [Page 252]and Names are distinguished by the Thoughts.

In the Orat. 36. Fourth Oration, Gregory resolves, according to his way, the Objections of the Arians, by which they pretend to shew the Unequality of the Father and the Son.

In the Orat. 37. Fifth, he disputes about the Con­substantiality of the Holy Spirit, against the Macedonians.

Some of those who believed the Divinity of the Son, denied that of the Holy Spirit, and were even so bold, as to call the Holy Spirit a Strange God; because he is styled God no where in the Holy Scripture. Gre­gory made his Fifth and last Theological Oration against them.

In that Discourse, speaking of the several Opinions that have been about that, he says, amongst other things, Orat. ib. p. 595. That the greatest Theologers among the Pagans, and those who came nearest to us, have an Idea of Him; though they gave him another Name, having called him, The Soul of the World, and, The Soul which comes from without; and used some other such Names. As for the Wise Men of our times, some believe that the Holy Spirit is a Faculty; some, that he is a Creature; some, that he is a God; and some know not in what Order of Things they should place him; by reason of the respect they [Page 253]have for the Scripture, which is not clear upon that Point. — Gregory maintains, That 'tis a Person Consubstantial with the Two other: And when he answers his Ad­versaries, who ask'd him wherein the Gene­ration and Procession differed, he hath re­course to the Incomprehensibility.

But one of the chief Objections against the Orthodox, was, Pag. 600. That they acknow­ledged Three Gods. If there is (said their Adversaries) a God, and a God, and a God; how comes it that there are not Three Gods? &c. This is (replyes Gregory) what is said by those whose Impiety is come to its height, and even by those who are in the Second rank, that is, who have a right Belief concerning the Son. I have a common Answer to both, and another which concerns only the latter: I ask therefore the latter, why they call us Tritheists, since they honour the Son; and whether, though they leave out the Holy Spirit, they are not Ditheists? How d'ye explain your Ditheism, when they offer you this Objection? Teach us how we ought to answer; for the Answer by which you will clear your selves from Ditheism, will serve us to vindicate our selves from Tritheism, &c. Thus we shall get the Victory, and our Accusers will be our Defenders, &c. But we have [Page 254]a Dispute with those two sorts of Adver­saries, and a common Answer to both. We have but One God, because there is but One Godhead; and that those who emaned from it, refer to One only thing, though we believe Three of them. The one is not more God than the other; the one is not Anterior, and the other Posterior. They are not divided in Will, nor separate in Power, and there is no­thing in them that is found in things di­vided; but to say all in a word, the God­head is without Division in Three Di­vided Persons; as in Three Suns fastened one to another, there would be but One Mixture of Light. When we consider the Deity, and the First Cause of the Monarchy, we conceive but One Thing; but when we consider those in whom the Deity, and those who emaned from the First Cause before Time was, and enjoy the same Glory, we worship Three.

But it will be said, Is there not One only Deity among the Pagans, as their most learned Philosophers say? All Mankind hath but One Humanity, and yet there are Many Gods among the Pagans, not One only, as there are Many Men. I answer, That in those things the Unity lies only in the Thought. Every Man is divided from others, by Time, Passions, and Power, [Page 255]which is not in God. Therein doth the UNITY of God consist, as far as I can con­ceive it. If that Reason be Good, let God be thanked for it; if not, we must look for a Better.

Afterwards Gregory proposes to himself an Arian Objection, which shews more clearly still, that the Orthodox placed not the Unity of God in the Numerical Ʋnity of the Divine Essence, but in a Specifick Ʋnity of Distinct and Equal Essences, and in a perfect Agreement of Wills. Pag. 602. Things which are of the same Essence (say ye) are ranked in the same Order of Things; — and those which are not Consubstantial, are not so ranked. From whence it follows, that you cannot but confess, that there are Three Gods, according to your reckoning: For as for us, we are not in the same danger, because we do not say that the Persons are Consubstantial. — The Arians meant, That forasmuch as they admitted but of One Supreme God, and who hath created all other things, they might say, in that respect, that there is but One God; because that God could not be ranked in the same Order, and under the same Name with his Creatures: but that the Orthodox acknowledging Three Beings of a perfectly like Nature, they could not deny that they acknowledged Three Gods, properly speaking. Gregory answers only, [Page 256]That Things which are not of the same Species, are often reckoned in the same Rank ( [...],) of which he gives several Instances out of the Scripture. That shews, that the Arians might be accused of admitting of Many Gods, as well as the Orthodox; not that the Orthodox acknow­ledged not Three Eternal Minds, though perfectly Equal, and having the same Will.

A little lower, in the same Oration, Pag. 611. Gre­gory says, That having sought among Created Things something like the Holy Trinity, he could find no satisfactory Com­parison: He thought of an Eye, a Fountain, and a River, but he found not those things proper enough to express his Thoughts. I was afraid (says he) First, that I should seem to introduce a cetain Fluxus of Di­vinity, which should have no Consistency: Secondly, establish a Numerical Unity by those Comparisons. For an Eye, a Foun­tain, and a Sun, are One in Number, though differently Modified. I was think­ing of the Sun, the Beams, and the Light; but it was to be feared still on this occa­sion, First, That we should suppose a Composition in a Nature wherein there is none; such as the Composition of the Sun, and what is in the Sun. Secondly, That indeed, we should give an Essence to the Father, but should not ascribe a Distinct [Page 257]Existence to the other Persons, by making them to be some Faculties which exist in God, and have no distinct Existence. The Rays, or the Light, are not other Suns, (as the Son and the Holy Spirit are other Minds distinct from the Father,) but some Emanations and Essential Properties of the Sun. Lastly, Gregory Pag. 612: found nothing better, than to lay aside those Images and Shadows, as being Deceitful, and very Remote from the Originals.

After all Gregory believes Pag. 608▪ that the Holy Trinity was only revealed by degrees; so that the Revelation manifested to Men, first God the Father, without speaking of God the Son but obscurely; afterwards the Son, without requiring from Men the Belief of the Holy Spirit; and lastly, the Holy Spi­rit, after the Ascension of the Son.

One may judge from those places, of the Doctrine of Gregory, and the Orthodox of his time; with whom the Orthodox of ours agree as well in Terms, as they differ from them in Sence. One may also observe in the Expressions of our Bishop a remarkable Effect of Disputing; viz. when Men are afraid that their Adversaries will take ad­vantage of certain Expressions, they care­fully forbear using them, for fear of lying open to 'em; though those Expressions are very proper to express the Doctrine they [Page 258]maintain. 'Tis manifest, that Gregory, to be well understood, should have answered the Arians; Yes, 'tis true, we worship Three Gods, since we acknowledge Three Eternal Minds, who have Distinct Essences: But those Gods are perfectly Equal, and as perfectly United as Distinct Beings can be, having the same Thoughts, and the same Will; hence it is that we commonly say, that we acknowledge but One God.— But had he spoken thus, the Arians, who boasted of their studying, and following the Scripture, would have presently replied, that the Scripture represents the Unity of the Supreme God, as a Numerical Unity, not as a Unity of Species and Agreement. They would have said (as they already did) but with greater shew of Reason, that the Homoousians introduced a New Paganism, by acknowledging Three Collateral Gods. So that they were obliged, to avoid those Reproaches, stoutly to maintain that there is but One God, according to the Nicene Opinion. The Platonicks, who had the same Thought, but were not confined to Expressions, spoke it out, and said, that the Principles of All Things are Three Gods. I cannot forbear quoting, on this occasion, some remarkable Words of St. Augustine, which do admirably confirm what I have just now said; De Civit. Dei, l. 10. c. 23. Liberis Verbis loquuntur [Page 259]Philosophi, nec in rebus ad intelligendum difficillimis, offensionem Religiosarum aurium pertimescunt. Nobis autem ad certam Regu­lam loqui fas est, ne verborum licentia, ETIAM in rebus quae in his SIGNIFI­CANTƲR, impiam gignat opinionem. Nos autem non dicimus Duo vel Tria Principia, cum de Deo loquimur; sicuti nec Duos Deos vel Tres nobis licitum est dicere, quamvis de unoquoque loquentes vel de Filio, vel de Spi­ritu Sancto, etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur. The Philosophers do freely use any Words, and are not afraid of offending Pious Ears, in Matters very dif­ficult to understand. As for us, we are not allowed to speak, but according to a certain Rule; lest some Words used with too great a licence, should produce an impious Opinion, if understood ac­cording to their Signification. When we speak of God, we neither mention Two nor Three Principles; as we are not al­lowed neither to say that there are Two or Three Gods, though speaking of every one of them, either of the Son or Holy Spirit, we say that each of 'em is God.

Such a Conduct, was the Cause of depart­ing by degrees from the ancient Notions; because the word Ʋnity was taken in its or­dinary Signification, without minding that the Antients understood it in a particular [Page 260]Sence. The same hath happen'd in several other Doctrines.

Having thus alledged so many Proofs of our Bishops Opinion concerning the Do­ctrines which then divided Christians, 'tis now time to return to his History. The Council, which I have already mention'd, Socrat. l. 5. c. 8. & Sozom. l. 7. c. 7. met at Constantinople in May, in the Year 381. It was made up of a CL. Or­thodox Bishops; and XXXVI. Macedonians, whom they hoped to bring to the Ortho­dox Faith. Besides, some Canons made in it concerning the Discipline, which I shall not mention, the Business of Gregory and Maximus was debated in it, and they made a Creed. Maximus's Conc. C.P. c. 4. Ordination, and all those which he might have conferred, were judged Null; and then Carm. de Vit. p. 14. they declared Gregory Bishop of Constantinople, though he endeavoured to be excused from it. They made him promise he would stay in it; because he persuaded himself, that be­ing in that Station, he could more easily reconcile the different Parties which divided Christianity. Indeed, it was said against Gregory's Promotion, that having been Bishop of Sasime and Nazianzum, he could not be transferred to Constantinople, without breaking the Fifteenth Canon of the Council of Nice, which is Formal thereupon. But [Page 261] Meletius Bishop of Theodor. l. 5. c. 8. Antioch replied to that, That the Design of that Canon was to bridle Pride and Ambition, which had no share in that Business. Besides, it seems, that that Canon was not observed in the East; since Carm. de Vit. sua, p. 29. Gregory calls what they op­posed to him, Laws dead long since. Fur­thermore, he had exercised no Episcopal Function at Sasime; and as to Nazianzum, he had been only his Father's Coadjutor.

That Business being over, they came to treat of the chief Subject for which they were met; viz. Macedonius's Opinion, who had been Bishop of Gonstantinople, and be­lieved that the Holy Spirit is but a Crea­ture; though all the Disciples of that Bishop agreed not about the Nature of that Divine Person, (as may be seen from a Pas­sage of Gregory, which I have quoted.)

The Nicene Creed was presently con­firmed in the Council, and 'twas thought fit Vid. Conc. Chalced. Act. 2. to make some Additions to it, espe­cially to what concerns the Holy Spirit. That Addition is exprest in these words, I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Fa­ther, who with the Father and the Son toge­ther, is worshipped and glorified, and who spake by the Prophets.

The Council did also Anathematize the Opinions of Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, [Page 262]Eunomius, Apollinaris, and Macedonius; but I shall not enlarge upon those Errors be­cause they have no essential relation with the Life of Gregory. For the same reason, I shall omit what concerns the Discipline.

All things went quietly enough with respect to Gregory, till there arose a Storm, which deprived him of the Episcopal See of Constantinople, when he least expected it. The Spirit of Vengeance, of a Party which he opposed, was the cause of that Di­sturbance; which Gregory, who was not courageous enough to sustain the shock of his Adversaries, could not get himself rid of, but by running away.

There happen'd, some time before, a mischievous Schism in the Church of An­tioch, where there were Two Orthodox Bishops at the same time. Meletius being dead at Constantinople, before the Council was ended, 'twas proposed to give him a Successor. Thereupon Gregory proposed an Expedient to put an end to that Schism; viz. That Paulinus, who was the other Orthodox Bishop, Carm. de Vit. p. 25. and had been Ordained by Lucifer of Cagliari, should govern alone the Church of Antioch during the rest of his life; and afterwards, those of Melelius's Party being reunited with those of Paulinus's, should chuse a Bishop by common Votes.

Lest it should be thought he had some Interest in favouring Paulinus, and that he designed to make a Party; he offered the Counsel to leave the Episcopal Throne of Constantinople, on which he was just setled. But the Ambitious Men, and Incendiaries, (as Gregory calls 'em) who began to move to give a Successor to Meletius, would not hearken to that Proposal. Ib. p. 27. A company of Young Men fell a crying like Mag-pies, and made so great a Noise, that they drew in even the Old Bishops, who should have resisted them, and brought to a second Examination the Business of Gregory, which was just before ended. Gregory describes admirably well their Ambition, Ignorance, and their other Defects, in the Poem he made concerning his Life: One had better read it in the Author himself, than here. In the mean time, the People having heard that Gregory began to be weary of the Council, and was talking of retiring, fell a crying that they would not take their Pastor from them, and desired him that he would not leave his Flock.

Thereupon, Timothy Bishop of Alexan­dria, who had succeeded Peter, and was of a violent and quarrelsom Temper, arrived with several Egyptian Bishops. The old Grudge they bore Gregory, on the account of Maximus the Cynick, had inflam'd them [Page 264]to such a degree against our Bishop, that the first thing they did, was to complain that they had broke the Canons, by trans­ferring Gregory from one Bishoprick to another. This caused a great stir in the Council, and on that occasion Gregory made his Oration concerning Peace, which is the Fourteenth, wherein he describes at large the Advantages of Concord, and the Mis­chiefs which arise from Divisions. He severe­ly censures the Inconstancy of the Bishops, who had other Thoughts of him, without any reason, and suffered themselves to be imposed upon by the Calumnies of his Ad­versaries. He says, that the ill Reports which are commonly spread against Mode­rate Men, ought to be despised.

Lastly, One may easily perceive, by all that he says, that 'tis not only in our time that Men have cover'd their most shameful Passions, with the specious Name of Zeal for the Purity of the Faith. Wherefore Gre­gory says Ib. p 29. that he told 'em, That they should not trouble themselves so much with what concerned him, but that they should endeavour to be re-united; That 'twas time for 'em to expose themselves no longer to be laught at as Wild Men, and such as have learned nothing but Quar­relling; That provided they would agree, he would willingly be the Jonas who should [Page 265]make the Storm to cease; That he had accepted of the Episcopal See against his will, and willingly parted with it; and that his Body, weakened with Old Age, obliged him to't.

But because notwithstanding they charged him with Ambition still, he made a Dis­course which is his Twenty seventh Oration; whereby he protests that he had accepted the Bishoprick of Constantinople against his will, and appeals to all the People for it. He says, Ortt. 27. p. 465. he doth not know whether he ought to call the See of Constantinople the Throne of a Tyrant, or a Bishop: He com­plains of his Enemies Evil-speaking, and the Envy they bore him, Pag. 466. because of his Elo­quence and Learning in the Sciences of the Pagans. That perhaps raised the Envy of some; but the Station he was in, raised without doubt the Envy of many more. He might have made use of all his Rhetorick at Sasime, without being put to any trouble upon that account.

Having declared, a Full Council, that he desired to leave the Place, which was so much envied; he went to the Emperor's Palace, to desire him to give him leave to retire. He obtained it with some difficulty; and having obtained it, his only Thoughts were to take his leave publickly; which he did in the Cathedral, in the presence [Page 266]of a Hundred and Fifty Bishops, and all the People. The Discourse he made is extant still, and is the Thirty second in order. He describes the bad Condition he found the Orthodox Church of Constantinople in, and the Alteration he made in it: He makes a Confession of his Belief concerning the Holy Trinity, and shews that he had done no­thing that deserved to be censured: He ex­horts the Fathers of the Council to chuse a Person worthy of the See of Constantinople, to succeed him; and lastly, takes his leave of all those who heard him. In that Pag. 523. Ora­tion he complains of his Old Age. And in the Poem concerning his Life, Pag. 30. he says he was then but a Dead Man Animated: Which he could not say, had he been but Fifty six, or Fifty seven years old, according to the ordinary Supputation.

As soon as he had taken his leave, the People, and generally all those who heard him at Constantinople, shewed a great grief for it. The Conduct of the Council must needs have appeared to them very incon­stant and violent, since after they had con­firmed Gregory in the See of Constantinople, they obliged him to leave it, when he was above Fourscore Years old. Without doubt, so imprudent and Unchristian a Behaviour gave matter of Sport to the Enemies of the Council, and lessen'd in a great measure [Page 267]the Authority of their Decisions. For how can it be imagined that Bishops, as Factious, Unjust and Ignorant as Gregory describes them in several Places, were able to examine with Deliberation the Doctrines then in question? If their Interest made 'em not encline to Orthodoxy, 'twas a meer Chance which led them into the right way. The love of Truth is seldom to be found with so much Vanity and Ignorance.

Thus Gregory left the Bishoprick of Con­stantinople, some Weeks after he had been setled in it by the Council that turned him out of it: He retired into Cappadocia, (ac­cording to Gregory the Priest, the Author of his Life,) and went to live at Arianzum, where he was born.

Among those who were presented to the Emperor, some Bishops Sozom. l. 7. c. 8. put in Nectarius a Senator of Constantinople, a Man of an Exemplary Life, and good Mien, but was not Baptized yet, and had scarce any Learn­ing. 'Tis not known whether Gregory set out for Cappadocia before that Election was made, or whether he stay'd at Constanti­nople till they had named him a Successor. However, Gregory wrote Orat. 46. an Instruction for Nectarius, wherein he begins with say­ing, That it seems, God's Providence, which heretofore took care of the Churches, had altogether given over the [Page 268]Conduct of the Things of this Life. — He says, that his Private Afflictions, though so great, that they would seem intollerable to any body else, induced him not to speak so: He assures, that the Condition only the Church was in, extorted those words from him. Afterwards, he describes to Nectarius the Boldness of the Arians and Macedonians, who were at least as numerous as the Or­thodox, and dared to meet publickly. A horrible Undertaking, after the Decisions of a Council so well regulated as that which was held a little before! Gregory could not apprehend how his Holiness and his Gravity (so the Bishops were called) suffered the Apollinarists to meet. He lets him know, that Apollinaris asserted. That the Body of the Son of God existed before the World; That the Divinity supplied the Place of the Soul; and, That the Body, which descended from Heaven, and is Essential to the Son, did notwithstanding die.

Gregory fancied, I know not why, that to suffer those Men to Meet, was to allow 'em that their Doctrine was Truer than that of the Council, since there cannot be Two Truths: As if to suffer some body, is to denote that one believes their Opinion to be True!

Lastly, He exhorts Nectarius to tell the Emperor, That what he had done in [Page 269]the behalf of the Church, would signifie nothing, if Hereticks were suffered to Meet.

Thus good Gregory, who, whilst the Arians were strongest, having the Emperor on their side, would not have that practised, which was blamed in them, exhorted his Successor to forget that good Lecture. So difficult a thing it is not to contradict one's self, when one doth not take great care to be free from Passion!

The next Year Theod. l. 5. c. 8. there was an Assembly of Bishops held at Constantinople, to which Gregory was invited: But he refused to go; and he answered those who invited him to it, thus; Ep. 55. If I must write the Truth t'ye, I am so affected, that I will always avoid any Assembly of Bishops; because I never saw any Synod that had good Success, or which did not rather encrease the Evil, than lessen it. Without any Exaggeration, the Spirit of Dispute and Ambition is so great in them, that it can't be exprest. — One ought not to think that our Bishop said so, without thinking well on't, and in a Fit of Passion. He repeats it in his Sixty­fifth, Seventy first, Seventy second, and Seventy fourth Letters; and besides, he diverted himself, by putting in Verses the same Thought in his Poetical Pieces: Carm. 10. p. 80. I'll never go (says he) to any Synod, be­cause [...] [Page 278] Gregory drew, for Example, Baronius, Pagi ad an. 389. a. 5. or some of his Transcribers, into an Error; since they believed, that when Gregory, a short time after the Death of his Brother Caesarius, and Sister Gorgonia, said that he was an Old Man, it was to be understood of a Premature Old Age; because the Tran­slator made use of that term, in translating the 363 Verse of the Poem entitled, Car­men I. de Rebus suis, though there is no such thing in the Original. As for the Translation of the Works writ in Prose, 'tis incomparably better; and it may be said, that the Abbot de Billy was as fit for Prose, as he was unfit for Verses. 'Tis a surpri­sing thing, that a Man of his Learning took so much pains to translate into bad Verses, what he might have better translated in Prose. However, one may observe a thing, in the Translation both of Gregory's Orations and Letters; which shews, that one ought always to have recourse to the Original; viz. That the Punctuation of the Translation is often altogether different from that which is in the Greek, which makes it appear neater. This may arise partly from the fault of those who put the Greek over against his Translation, (for he publish'd it by it self, and were not careful enough to correct it; and partly from the liberty the Translator took, who cut several [Page 279]Periods that were too long, and lengthened those which seemed to him too short. However, it may be said in general, that 'tis one of the best Translations of the Greek Fathers that we have, and at the same time one of the most difficult, by rea­son of Gregory's Style being too Florid, and even Harsh and Obscure in several places wherein he handles some controverted Do­ctrines.

I should end here the Life of Gregory, because there is nothing else to be said of him that is certain, were it not that I per­ceived, a little too late, that what I have said concerning the putting off of Baptism, may be cleared by Gregory himself. He disputes at large, in his Fortieth Oration, wherein he treats of Baptism, against those who put it off, for the above-mention'd Reasons. After all, it appears, to say so in a word, from that Oration, that Gregory believed, 1. That all past Sins are forgiven and blotted out by Baptism. 2. That 'tis a very difficult thing to be restored into a state of Salvation, if one commits a mortal Sin after Baptism. 3. That those who neglect Baptism, and die without it, are Damned. 4. That those who die without being Baptized, but have not neglected or put off their Baptism by their fault, are [Page 280]neither Glorified nor Punished; whether they die in Childhood, or in a more ad­vanced Age, wherein they wished in vain to be Baptized.

It appears from that Doctrine, and seve­ral others, that Christian Societies now-a-days, without excepting one, cannot boast to follow the Doctrine of the Fathers in every thing. Theology is subject to Revo­lutions, as well as Empires; but though it hath undergone considerable Changes, yet the Humour of Divines is not very much alter'd; as will easily appear, by com­paring what we see in those of our time, with the Complaints Gregory Nazianzen makes against those who lived in his.

A Ʋrelius Prudentius Clemens was born in Spain, in the Year 348, ( Praefat. Cathem. as he himself says, in some places of his Works.) His Ancestors and Quality are not known, but it appears that he had afterwards some considerable Employments. Ibid. After his Childhood, he applied himself, according to the Custom of those Times and the fore­going Ages, to the Study of Eloquence, under the Direction of a Rhetor. Youth learned, in those Ages, to Declame upon all sorts of Subjects, before they applied them­selves to the Sciences necessary to dive into the Nature of those Subjects, and handle them well.

That way of Instructing Young Men was not New; and the Abuses that crept [Page 282]into it, were not introduced all of a sudden. L. 2. c. 4. Quintilian assures us, that 'twas only in Demetrius Phalerianus's time about 300 Years before Christ, that the Athenian Ma­sters of Rhetorick began to exercise Young Men, who desired to advance themselves, and get some Preferments in the State, by proposing some feigned Subjects to them, like those that were treated before the People, or at the Barr, and obliging them to discourse upon those Matters in their Schools. But in Socrates's time, who lived a hundred years before, there were already some Masters whose Profession was to teach to defend all sorts of Causes, and who boasted to argue them so, as to make what is Unjust, appear Just; such were Cicero in Bruto. § 8. Gor­gias Leontinus, Thrasimachus of Calcedonia, Protagoras Abderinus, Prodicos of Ceos, Hippias Eloeus, and many others, who pro­mised, with great insolence, to teach how a Bad Cause might become Good, by plead­ing it as one ought to do: Quemadmodum causa inferior dicendo fieri superior posset. One may see a bloody Satyr against those Men in Aristophanes his Nubes, who indeed very unjustly ascribes that Doctrine to So­crates, but grounds that Calumny only upon this, viz. That there was at that time some Men who maintained it, and upon some outward resemblance which might be [Page 283]between Socrates's Discourses and theirs. He that will form yet a more compleat Idea of those Sophists, must read Aristotle's Books concerning Sophistical Arguments, wherein he assures us, that the Art of those Men was, a seeming Wisdom, but not real­ly so.

Socrates, and the wise Men of his time, omitted nothing to ridicule those Men, and hinder that so pernicious an Art should be esteemed, as it may be seen by Three Dia­logues Hippias, Protagoras, & Euthy­demus. See Cicero de Orator. l: 3. c. 16. of Plato, wherein he very inge­niously mocks the Sophists of his time. But they did not succeed in their Design, since Greece proved afterwards full of that sort of Rhetors; and Isocrates, whom Plato did much esteem, made two Orations like those of Gorgias, wherein he praises two Persons that are extremely to blame, viz. Helena and Busiris.

Whatever Socrates, and those that were of his Mind, might have said, a Discourse artificially composed, and attended with the other Ornaments of Rhetorick, made so great an Impression upon the People, that by the means of such Art, they over­came the best Reasons. This could not fail to make a great many People desirous to learn it, and to corrupt the Minds of most Men: Therefore they endeavoured to know how to speak agreeably and readily [Page 284]upon all Subjects; and because such a thing depended much more upon Exercise, than the Knowledge of the Things themselves, they spent a great deal more time in De­claming, than in Forming their Judgment, and Studying the other Sciences. If they applied themselves to Philosophy, it was not so much to please themselves with the Knowledge of the Truths which it might contain, as to appear Learned, and make use of them at the Barr. They chiefly ap­plied themselves to Dialectick; which was nothing else but the Art of Wrangling upon every thing, and Arguing Sophistically, rather than Rationally. They pretended, that they were not bound to use, upon the Subjects which they treated, Demonstra­tive Arguments, or such as come as near them as can be; and they thought that it was enough to alledge Likely Arguments, not in such a degree of Probability which moves the Mind by it self, but in such a degree as belongs to the Things which are not oppo­site to clear Truth. 'Twas almost enough, to say nothing either altogether absurd, or whereof the Weakness was palpable almost to every body. Vid. Diog. Laert. in ejus Vita; p. 319. Ed. Hen. Steph. Aristotle, who proposed Two things to himself in his Writings, what is Probable ( [...],) and what is True, handled the former, in his Dialectick and Rhetorick; wherein he shews how to [Page 285]make upon every thing Probable Discourses, that is, of the Falsity whereof every body is not sensible.

One may also convince one's self of all this, by reading of the other Ancient Rhe­tors, and especially the Rhetorical Books which Cicero wrote. That Art, as he him­self says, came from Greece to Rome, and besides the Greeks who taught Rhetorick in it from the time of the Second Punick War, some Masters did also teach to Declame in Latin. 'Twas one Lucius Plotius who be­gan to exercise the Youth in that Language, Cicero being but a Child.

They distinguished those Exercises into several kinds; sometimes they took a Moral Subject, which they handled so as to alledge nothing that was particular, but only some general Notions, which had no relation to any Fact or Circumstance. This they cal­led Theses, and In Praef. Cont. Seneca the Rhetor says that those were the Exercises practised before Cicero; although it appears from what hath been said, that they had some other Exer­cises, which consisted in some Discourses which they made upon a true Fact taken Sucton. in lib. de Claris Rhe­toribus. out of Ancient or Modern History: Whereupon they enquired what ought to be done on some Occasions; wherein they praised or blamed some Action. Cicero calls those Subjects Causes; and says in [Page 286]several places, that he Tuscul. 1. c. 4. had much exercised himself in them: Nay, he says, in one of his Letters, Ep. Fa­mil. l. 9. Ep. 16. that Hirtius and Dolabella Declamed at his House, in an Age in which it seems that those Exercises were unseasonable. Afterwards they found, that true Subjects taken out of ancient History, or such as lately happen'd, were not fit for that: They feigned some Facts, and to have more occasion to say some extraordinary things, Petron. Init. they cloathed them with strange Circumstances. There was nothing to be heard but Discourses upon what a Man should do, when he is ready to escape from a Ship-wrack, and seeth upon the Shore some Py­rates who will bind him with Chains; or concerning a Man whom a Tyrant should command, upon pain of Death, to kill his own Father; or concerning a Father who should see his Children carried away to be sacrificed, by the Command of an Oracle. One may see a great number of such like Subjects in Seneca's and Quintilian's Con­troversies. They handled them with such an Eloquence, as came much nearer the Style of a Tragical Poet, than a Judicious Orator. That manner of Studying, which was admired in the following Ages, in which Men were much less polite, made most Wri­ters meer Declamators, full of Exaggera­tions, strained Figures, Witticisms, Equi­vocations, [Page 287]Punns, Arguments which prove nothing, and all the other Defects of a false Rhetorick. They undertook to maintain all sorts of Subjects, without having any regard to Truth, thinking that one might more improve, by exercising one's self to defend bad Causes, than to maintain good one's. Thus Julian, being yet a Christian, Declamed against the Christian Religion in the School of Libanius, only said they to form his Mind, and use himself to find out probable Arguments pro and con on all Subjects.

I was obliged somewhat to enlarge upon the Manner of Studying in those Centuries; because without having some Notion of it, these words of Prudentius, in the Abridg­ment which he himself made of his Life, cannot be understood:

That last Verse denotes well enough the Rhetorical Exercises which I have men­tion'd, which Young Men applied them­selves to, when they had put on the thorough White Gown, that is, at Seventeen or Eighteen Years of Age. In effect, they learned thereby to speak false things (falsa [Page 288]loqui,) which though spoken, as it were, out of an ingenious Fancy, yet were criminal, (non sine crimine,) because by that means they used themselves by degrees to Lye, and speak against their Conscience. Fa­ther Chamillard [ who put out Prudentius, in usum Delphini] hath paraphrased those words with some that are more obscure: Plenus criminibus didici dicere falsa cri­minosé. But I have not mention'd the Studies of Prudentius's time, only by reason of that place; but because, as we shall see hereafter, there is a great many others in our Poet, which require that we should think of the Manner of Studying, and the Eloquence of his Time.

The Christians Studied as others did, and Reasoned almost as they did. One may find a pleasant Description of the Eloquence of that time, in St. Jerom's Letter to Nepo­tianus, Pag. 12. Ed. Gryph. concerning the manner how Ec­clesiasticks ought to behave themselves: Don't you require of me (says he) Childish Declamations, wherein one may find Sentences spread as it were Flowers through the whole Discourse; far fetch'd Expressions, to flatter the Hearer's Ear; and at the end of every Article, Wit­ticisms shut up within few Words, to ex­cite the Applauses and Exclamations of those that hear us: — Ne à me quaeras [Page 289]pueriles declamationes, sententiarum flosculos, verborum lenocinia, & per fines capitulorum singulorum acuta quaedam breviterque con­clusa, quae plausus & clamores excitent au­dientium. For then, to say so by by the bye, Acclamations and Applauses were used in Churches, as well as Theaters: Ib. p. 14. Which appears by St. Jerom's Advertisement in the same Letter: I will not have you (says he) to be a Declamator, and a Bab­bler without Reason; but understand the Mysteries, and be instructed in the Se­crets of your God. 'Tis the part of Un­learned Men, to seek to be Admired by the ignorant Vulgar, by rowling as it were some words, and reciting with an extraordinary swiftness. An impudent Man doth often explain what he knows not; and after he hath imposed upon others, fancies himself to be Learned. I desired once Gregory Nazianzen, who was formerly my Master, to explain to me what's meant by the Second Sabbath after the First, in St. Luke: And he plea­santly answer'd, I will teach you that at Church, where, when all the People shall applaud me, you will be forced to know what you do not know; or if you only keep silence, you will be look'd upon as a Fool: Docebo te super hac re in Ecclesia, in qua mihi omni populo acclamante, cogeris [Page 290]invitus scire quod nescis; aut certè si solus tacueris, solus ab omnibus stultitiae condem­naberis.

To return to Prudentius: He confesses, that when he applied himself to the Study of Eloquence, he lived after a manner some­what licentious. Afterwards he began to make use of his Eloquence at the Barr; where his desire of gaining all the Causes he undertook to defend, either good or bad, exposed him, as he says, to great Dangers. Next to that, he obtained twice the Government of some Provinces which he doth not name: He was in the Army for some time, and was raised by Theodosius, or Honorius, to a considerable Employ­ment, which he describes in these terms:

Perhaps he had been Praefect of the Praeto­rium, which was the Chief Dignity of the Empire. 'Tis not known why, nor upon what occasion, he retired Home; but it appears, that in the Fifty seventh Year of his Age, he wrote the Preface of his Hymns for Every Day; wherein he alludes to his [Page 291]several Works ( Vers. 35, &c.) which he designed, or had already composed, but perhaps were not yet made publick. They all run upon some Subjects of Devotion, and part of them are in Lyrick, and part in Heroick Verses; yet he was not born for Poetry, and it doth not appear that he had much Learning. He doth very often mistake the Quantity not only of Greek Words, the Orthography of which he doth not seem to have well understood, but also of Latin Words, of which one may find some Lists in his Interpreters. He also uses many words of the Latinity of his time, and a Style which could only be liked then. The noble Facility of the ancient Poets, nor so much of Claudian, who lived at the same time, doth not appear in it; and the bot­tom of his Style is low, and prosaick e­nough, though he doth whatever he can to raise it. His Heat fails him at every mo­ment: One may perceive that Age had lessen'd the Heat of his Fancy, and that he could not supply it by the Light of his Mind. But if his Poetry doth not please by its Elegancy, yet it may be useful, because one may learn from it several Opinions and Customs of his time, besides some Facts concerning the History of Martyrs; as it will appear by the following Examination of some Places of our Poet.

I. The Book entitled Hymns for Every Day, contains Twelve of them, composed as if they were to be sung or recited on se­veral Occasions, at Break of Day, at one's Rising, before and after Meals, when they light the Candle, when one goes to Bed, on a Fast and after Fasting, at all times, at a Funeral, on Christmas-Day, and on the Epiphany. The Preface which is before those Hymns seems to be rather a General Preface for all the Poems of Prudentius; since (as I have already observed) he al­ludes therein to all his Works; and says, that he is resolved to leave for ever his worldly Employments, that he might alto­gether apply himself to write Verses to the Praise of God, against Heresies, and the Pa­gan Religion, to explain that of Christ, and upon the Martyrs and Apostles. Those are the Subjects upon which all the Poems of Prudentius run.

1. One may observe, that that Poet men­tions several popular Opinions of the Chri­stians in his time, which they took from the Heathens, as that which is to be found in the First Hymn ( Vers. 38.) wherein he assures us that they said, That the Daemons, whom the Darknesses of the Night rejoyces, withdraw when the Day appears. The Pa­gans believed that the Demi-Gods retired into some Desart Places, and wandred in [Page 293]the Night, and at Full-Noon, (as I have observed elsewhere; to which the 72, 73, and 74 Verses of Callimacus his Hymn, en­titled The Baths of Pallas, may be joined, wherein he says that that Goddess bathed herself at the same time that Mount Citheron enjoyed the Rest of Noon. What the Latins said concerning their Lemures and Striges, is well known.

2. There is many Expressions in Pruden­tius, which are very harsh, and seem to say much more than he designed. For Example, Ib. v. 58. speaking of St. Peter, he says:

It seems that he meant no more than this, viz. That though St. Peter had sworn that he knew not our Lord, yet he kept in his mind the same Sentiments for him which he had before. But his words taken in a rigorous sence, seem to say that a Man may speak against his Conscience, and yet have his Mind free from Guilt, as in Euripides's Verse: ‘Juravi Lingua, Mentam Injuratam gero.’

Those who delight too much in a Figu­rative Style, are liable to the like Expres­sions. Thus St. Cyprian, in his Book Oxon. Ed. 127. de Lapsis, speaking of those who were overcome by the violence of Torments, says, Infirmitas viscerum sensit, nec animus sed corpus dolore defecit: "'Tis not the "Mind, but the Body that failed.

We shall see in the Sequel of this Dis­course another remarkable Example, by which it will appear that Prudentius says more than he means.

3. In the Evelenth Hymn, to be recited in the Morning, Vers. 29. there is a slight Imita­tion of Horace; wherein having said, that in the Morning every body betakes himself to his Affairs, Prudentius adds:

One may see the beginning of the First Satyr of Horace, by which it will appear, that by Togatus, we are to understand a Juris Consult, or a Lawyer. F. Chamillard understands a Judge by it: But what I have said, and forensis gloria, which follows, shew that the Poet means, a Person who frequented the Barr, to get Glory by Plead­ing, [Page 295]not to do Justice in it. This agrees well enough with the Division of the Day, which we find in Martial, l. 4. Ep. 8.

In the words of Cicero, cited by F. Cha­millard, Cedant arma togae, Toga doth not signifie the Judgments given in time of Peace, and hath no relation with Junica­ture; but denotes Eloquence, as it appears by the rest of the Verse, Concedat Laurea Linguae. This is not the only place wherein Criticks will not agree with our Commen­tator.

4. For Example; Prudentius, in the Third Hymn Vers. 2. to be recited Before Meals, calls Christ Verbigena; where F. Chamillard doth well observe, that according to the Analogy of the Latin Tongue, that word signifies Begotten, or Born of the Word, as Martigena signifies Born of Mars. Yet he maintains that this is not Prudentius's mean­ing, because it is contrary to the Faith, which teaches us, that Christ is the very Word of his Father, not a Production of the Father's Word; so that he explains Ver­bigena, Begotten Word. But as we would not have our Words to be always explained according to the Notions and Terms of the [Page 296]Antients; 'tis not just that we should make 'em speak as we do, unless it be evident that they have really used the same Expres­sions in the same sence. That Rule ought always to be observed, but especially when the Question is about an Incomprehensible Subject, as on this occasion; for indeed, whatever Expressions be used, it doth not become more Intelligible. Besides, it ap­pears from another place of Prudentius, that by Verbigena, he understood, Begotten by Speaking. Here are his words in Vers. 17. the Eleventh Hymn of the same Book:

Although Thou camest out of the Father's Mouth, and wast begotten as the Word, yet Thou wast before his Wisdom, in his Breast.

Prudentius expresses in those words the Opinion of several Antients who liv'd be­fore the Council of Nice, and believ'd that the Substance of the Son of God had existed after an Incomprehensible manner, and without Generation in the Father, from whom it emanated after an unspeakable man­ner [Page 297] Vid. Bull Def. Fid. Nican. §. 3. p. 5, &c. before the Creation of the World; and that Emananation they call his Gene­ration. Notwithstanding, they do some­times explain that Generation by the Ex­ample of the Production of the Word; which made Tertullian say, Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, & prolatione generatum: Vid. Iren. l. 2. c. 48. We have learn'd that God produced him, and begot him by Production. — Hence it is that the Fathers of the Council of Nice anathematized those who should say that the Son existed not before he was begotten: So that, in their Opinion, the Nature of the Son of God existed not only before the World, but is Co-Eternal with God, properly speak­ing; whereas his Personality is only Eternal, inasmuch as it did exist before Time, that is, the Duration of the World. The same Fa­thers teach, that after the Generation of the Son, he created the World, (as one may see in Dr. Bull.) Prudentius says also, agreeably to that Notion, in the following words,

Which being emanated from the Father, created Heaven, the Day, and all Things else. — Those who will give them­selves the trouble to compare this Remark [Page 298]with F. Chamillard's Note, will be able to judge whether it be safe to explain the An­tients according to the Modern Notions. If any one desires to have a clear Idea of the manner after which the Antients apprehended that the Essence of the Son existed without Generation in his Father, and how he was emanated from him, I refer him to the same Fathers, who will tell him that 'tis a Mystery they comprehended not no more than we.

5. In the same Hymn, Vers. 58. wherein the word Verbigena is to be found, there is also an Opinion singular enough, and which savours more of a Pythagorean, or Manichean, than an Orthodox. Having said that the Earth affords all sorts of Fruits to the Chri­stians, he adds:

The Ebionites are accused, as well as the Manicheans, of having believed that 'tis not lawful to eat Meat; and one may see St. Epi­phanius upon those two Heresies. Prudentius might have said in this place more than he thought, as F. Chamillard believes, who ob­serves, that he only meant, that many ab­stained from Meat, the they thought it not unlawful, only to live a more austere Life.

6. Towards the end of the same Poem, Vers. 19. Prudentius, speaking of Christ's Resur­rection, says:

For I remember that a Corporeal God easily came up again from Phlegethon. — F. Chamillard paraphrases this latter word by that of Limbus; as if Prudentius, by the Name of one of the Rivers of Hell, un­derstood what they call Limbus Patrum. 'Tis certain, that the Pagans, who first used the word Phlegethon, denoted by it, not a River of the Elysian Fields, or Fortu­nate Islands, but of Hell, and the Place of Torments. So that unless Prudentius ex-explains it elsewhere, or the general Opinion of the Christians of that time leads that way, the Criticks will have much ado to apprehend why the word Phlegethon should not denote in Prudentius the Place of Tor­ments. Now, having examined all the Pas­sages in Prudentius, wherein that Name, and those of the other Rivers of Hell are used, I find that Prudentius denotes by those terms, not a Place of Rest, but a Place wherein the Souls are Tormented. He de­scribes that Place as the Heathen Poets do, [Page 300]either with respect to its Situation, or the Torments which they suffer there. Thus in the Apotheosis, Vers. 743, he speaks to Lazarus in these terms, Dic cujus vocem tellure sub ima, &c. Tell us whose Voice you heard under the lowest Places of the Earth, and what Force went through the hidden Places where the Dead make their abode: Since when Christ recall'd you, and order'd you to come forth from the Black Depth wherein you was, you heard it as if you had been near. By what so neighbouring an Abyss is the Kingdom of of Darkness almost joined with the Upper Parts of the Earth? Where is the dismal Tenarus, by which they go down through a vast Extent? and that Hidden River, which rouls Flames in its Channel, which nothing can fill?

It appears from thence, that Prudentius placed Hell under the Earth, at a very great distance from the Place wherein the Living dwell: as Homer and Hesiod, who say that Tartarus is as far from hence, as Heaven is; and that an Iron Anvil thrown from Heaven upon Earth, or from hence to Tartarus, could get thither but in Ten Days.

In his Hamartigeny, Ver. 824. he describes Hell in the following words: [Page 301]

One would almost think that 'tis a Heathen Poet who speaks thus; but he is not the only one who hath done the same; the Jews before and after Christ, and the an­cient Christians, exprest themselves in the same terms.

Now, if it be asked what was the Opi­nion of the Fathers concerning the Place into which Christ descended, and those he took out of it; I answer, That there was some diversity of Opinions amongst 'em upon that Subject, although they agree in some respects. They See Pear­son upon the Fifth Article of the Apostles Creed, pag. 256, &c. all constantly say that Christ descended into the subterranean Places where the Dead make their abode; but they don't agree about the Persons to whom he made himself known, and the End for which he went to them, because they had not the same Notions concerning the State of the Dead. Some who by the words Hades and Infernus, understood the Places wherein the Souls of all Men, both Good and Bad, are expecting the Resur­rection, believed that the Soul of Christ descended towards the Souls of those who [Page 302]died in the fear of God, as the Patriarchs and Prophers. But some others, as St. Au­gustine, who thought that those words are never to be found in the Scripture for a Place of Happiness, and consequently could not apprehend that the Souls of the Pa­triarchs and Prophets should be detained in it; those Fathers, I say, could not believe that Christ, in his Descent into Hell, went to the Prophets and Patriarchs who were not there.

Some of those who followed the former Opinion, as Eusebius, St. Ambrose, and St. Jerom, believed that Christ took from Hell the Souls of Good Men, and led them into Heaven. That's the Opinion of the modern School-men, and which F. Chamil­lard seems to follow in his Paraphrase. But others who had the same Thoughts, with respect to the word Hades, believed that the Souls were still in a subterranean Place, which they call Abraham's Bosom, where they were to stay till the Day of the Resur­rection. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Ter­tullian, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory Nyssen, were of that Opinion.

Others, who maintained that the Souls of the Patriarchs could not be in a Place call'd Hell, which, in their Opinion, de­notes only the Place of Torments in the Scripture, said that Christ really descended [Page 303]into the Place wherein the Devils and wicked Men are tormented. They believed he went thither to deliver the Souls which were there to suffer the Punishment which their Sins deserved. Some pretended that Christ had only delivered a certain number of those Souls; and others, that he had al­together emptied Hell. St. Augustine Haeres. 79. calls this latter Opinion a Heresie, and follows the former. However, it was St. Cyril's Opinion, Hom. Pasch. 7. who assures us, that when Christ was risen, he left the Devil alone in Hell. Prudentius seems to have been of the same Mind too; at least, in his Vers. 125. & 133. Fifth Hymn, he says that every Year, on the Night in which Christ rose, the Damned feel no Pain; which supposes that Christ descended into that Place, and took the Damned out of it on that very Night:

The Spirits of the Wicked, the Night in which God came from the Lakes of [Page 304] Acheron, have some solemn releases from their Torments. Tartarus languishes with milder Punishments; the People of the Shades, free from Fire, are glad to have some rest in their Prison, and the Rivers of Brimstone don't boil as they are wont to do. — F. Chamillard ob­serves that the Poet was mistaken in that respect, altho' St. Augustine▪ Enchir. c. 12. believed also that the Damned had sometimes some re­lease. The School-men, and other Di­vines, who are so positive upon that Mat­ter, should produce a clear Revelation, or the Testimony of some that have been in the Places which they speak of. But it appears, by the variety of Opinions, that no body hath any such Proof; and all that can be said, is, that it were better ingeniously to confess that they know nothing of it, no more than those who formerly spoke of it so differently. We shall see again, in the sequel of this Work, a Thought of Pruden­tius, extraordinary enough, concerning the State of the Dead.

7. In the Hymn Vers. 95. to be said before Sleep, speaking of the Divine Justice, which can kill the Soul, as well as the Body, he says,

[Page 305] Notwithstanding, that Revenger, full of Goodness, stops his Wrath, and only permits that some impious Men perish for ever. — Had Prudentius read Plato, one might believe that he should have taken that Opinion from him; for that Philosopher introduces Socrates, in his Phaedon, dividing Men into Three Orders; the last whereof, which contains but a small number of them, is of those who are come to the highest pitch of Wickedness, and who being past curing, are precipitated into Tartarus, never to come out of it. It may be also that our Poet, by Perirae in Aevum, meant, not meerly to be excluded from Heaven, or to be in Hell, but to suf­fer the highest degree of Punishment in it; for he acknowledged several Degrees of it, as he says in the end of his Harmartigeny, of which I shall speak hereafter.

The Fathers have very differently spoken of the State of Souls after Death, and the Punishments of another Life; so that 'tis no wonder that Prudentius should have an Opinion of his own upon that Subject. We have seen what they said concerning the Place into which Christ descended, whilst his Body was in the Grave: And several of their Opinions concerning the Duration of the Punishment of the Wicked, may be seen in Huetius his Origeniana, lib. 2. cap. 2. q. 11. [Page 306]by which it will appear, that Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus believed that after a certain time they should be annihilated. But, says that learned Man, the Church had decided nothing then concerning those Questions, so that what was look'd upon as uncertain at that time, became certain, since some Councils were pleased to tell what was their Opinion concerning it; which Opinion cannot be grounded upon a constant Tra­dition, seeing the Antients spake so diffe­rently of it.

8. 'Twas the Custom to make the Sign of the Cross when they went to Bed, thinking that that Sign did drive away the Devil; as it appears by these words of Vers. 131. Prudentius in the same Hymn:

Make the Sign of the Cross upon the Forehead and Heart. The Cross drives away all manner of Crimes, and Dark­ness flies from the Cross, &c. — The Respect which the Antients had for that Fi­gure, gave occasion to their being accused of worshipping the Cross, (as may be seen in Minutius Felix, who vindicates himself [Page 307]from it;) but at last the time came, when Men were not ashamed to maintain that it ought to be worshipped. Thus Outward Practises, which strike the Eyes of the People, and are performed without Trouble, are easily kept up and encreased; whilst the Inward Dispositions of the Mind, which cannot be acquired without Pains, and with­out renouncing one's Passions, are neg­lected.

9. In the Ver. 147. Seventh Hymn, which is for those who Fast, Prudentius, speaking of the Fast of the Ninivites, affords us an Ex­ample of a manner of Speaking, which may easily lead one into an Error, if he doth not read with great Attention. He speaks after the manner of his time, of a thing that was done in a very remote time, and which those who did it, would not have expressed after the same manner:

It was resolved to appease Christ with Publick Fastings. — If the Ninivites well known, and if we knew not the Fast which Prudentius mentions, was celebrated many Ages before Christ, we might con­clude from thence, that the People knew Christ. But 'tis very likely that our Poet [Page 308]had no such Thought, but only spake as they did in his time; and in all probabi­lity, those who spake of the Father's of the Old Testament in Christian terms, did the same.

10. Prudentius is not very exact in his Expressions, as one may easily perceive by the reading of some Pages with a little Ap­plication. Here is a remarkable Instance of it in the two Verses of his Ver. 12. Tenth Hymn, wherein he describes Death thus:

The Earth receives the Body, and the Wind carries away the Soul. — If we had nothing of him but those two Verses, and if we knew not that he was a Christian, we should maintain, that he believed that the Soul dies together with the Body; for the second of those two Verses doth natu­rally signifie so much, and an Epicurean could not express himself better. But be­sides that it cannot be doubted, after the reading of Prudentius, that he believed the Immortality of the Soul, he explains him­self in his second Book against Symmachus, wherein he introduces † God speaking thus; a Ver. ib. The Inward Man, who lives in you, shall not die; he shall be punish'd with an Ever­lasting [Page 309]Punishment, because he hath ill govern'd the Members that were subjected to him. 'Tis no difficult thing for me to surround a Liquid Substance with Flame, though it flies as the Wind:

He would have the Soul to be a very subtle Liquor, which the Wind carries away; but he pretended, that it could not be dissipated. The question is not, whether he had a clear Idea of what he said, and whether his Opi­nion is rational; 'tis enough to shew that he believed those two things, lest he should be suspected of Epicureism. F. Chamillard conjectures, that he might believe that the Soul was of the same Nature with Heaven, or of the Quint-Essence which Heaven is made of. But Prudentius his Chimera's were not perhaps the same with those of the Peripateticks of our time.

II. The Work entitled De Coronis, con­tains a Preface, and Fourteen Hymns, in Praise of several Martyrs, especially of Spain, which was our Poet's Native Countrey.

1. It doth clearly appear from several Places in those Hymns, that they Prayed to Martyrs at that time, and believed that they were appointed Patrons of some Places by God. Some Protestant Writers, who fancy that the Tradition of the Four or Five first Centuries of the Church ought to be joined with the Scripture, have denied that the Saints were Prayed to in the Fourth Century; but they should not have framed a Notional System, before they were well in­structed in Facts, since they may be con­vinced of this by several places out of Pru­dentius. Thus in the Ver. 10. First Him, which is in Praise of two Martyrs of Calahorra, a City of Spain, he says, Exteri nec non & Orbis, &c. Strangers come hither in Crowds, because Fame hath publish'd through the whole World, that the Pa­trons of the World (Patroni Mundi) are here, whose Favour may be sought for by Prayers. No Body did ever offer here pure Oraisons in vain. Whosoever came to Pray to them, perceiving that his just Requests had been granted him, went away full of Joy, having wept off his Tears. Those Martyrs are so careful to intercede for us, that they suffer not that they should be Prayed to in vain: [Page 311]Whether it be done with a loud or a low Voice, they hear it, and report it to the Ears of the Eternal King. — Those who desire more Proofs of it, need only. read the Passages marked in the Hymn. II. ver. 457. III. 311. IV. 175, & 196. V. 545. IX. 97. X. 130. XIV. 124. Margin.

It doth also appear from Vigilantius a Priest Vid. Hie­ron. T. 2. of Barcelona his upbraiding most of the Christians of his time upon that ac­count, that there were already great Abuses in the Honour which they paid to the Saints. St. Jerom, who answer'd him, con­firms the same, by his manner of vindicating himself: He feigneth so to understand the Objections of Vigilantius, as if that learned Man had said that the Martyrs were Ho­noured as Gods, whereas he only com­plained that they Prayed to them, and Kissed their Relicks. Hereupon his Antago­nist denies that they Worshipped the Mar­tyrs, and believed they were Gods; but he doth not deny that they Prayed to them. One may see his violent Invective against Vigilantius, in the Second Tome of his Works.

2. Although Prudentius relates a great number of Circumstances of the Torments of the Martyrs, whom he mentions; yet he complains that Time and the Heathens [Page 312]have destroyed abundance of Acts, from which one might have learned them.

Hymn I. ver. 73. O Forgetfulness of Antiquity! We are deprived of the knowledge of those Facts; and the very Fame, which would have mention'd them, is extinguished; for the Satellites of the Heathens have long since taken from us the Acts. — The History of the Martyrs hath been the better adorned for it; they are represented to us not as Men, but as Persons that have no Feeling, and at the same time are almost out of their Wits, (as it appears by the Hymns upon Lawrence and Agnes.) Hence it is also that Prudentius made but Two Persons of several. Hippolytus's and Cyprian, as F. Chamillard hath observed upon the Eleventh and Twelfth Hymns.

3. They believed, in our Poet's time, that Rome was full of the Graves of Martyrs, whereof the Number was not known, Hymn II. ver. 541. as may be inferred from the following words: [Page 313]

'Tis scarce known how full Rome is of hidden Saints, and how rich and adorned with holy Sepulchres the Soil of that City is. — The great Crowds of People about the Graves of the Martyrs, brought then too great a Gain to the Ec­clesiasticks in whose Parish they were found, to believe them altogether upon their Word. However, they began then to set up the Catacombs, of which here's a Descrip­tion taken out of the Ver. 158. Eleventh Hymn:

Not far from the Walls of the City is a Vault, that lies open through dark Pits: They go down into it by winding Stairs, without seeing any thing at all, for there is but a small Light that gets into it through the Door of the Stairs; but when they go forward to the darkest Place, after they have walked through the winding Bye­ways of that Den, the Light comes in through a Gap that is above: And al­though those Paths are very narrow and [Page 314]winding, yet one sees often the Light through such like Gaps which are in the pierced Vault, &c. The Body of Hyp­politus (says Prudentius) was laid in that hidden Place.

4. 'Tis not only the Behaviour of the Christians towards the Martyrs, after their Death, which may be observed in the Works of Prudentius; one ought also to remark how they behaved themselves towards them whilst they were alive. In the Ver. 333. Fifth Hymn, which contains St. Vincent's Pas­sion, Prudentius represents the Christians go­ing in Crowds to the Prison, wiping and kissing the Wounds which he received when he was pinched with Tongs (ungularum du­plices sulcos) licking his Blood, or dipping a Cloth in it, to keep it as a kind of Preser­vative for them and their Posterity. It ap­pears also from the Ver. 75, &c. Sixth Hymn, that Fructuosus Bishop of Sarragoza was attended with many Friends of his as far as the burn­ing Pile, and that they desired him to re­member them. Afterwards they gathered carefully his Ashes and Bones, and having sprinkled them with Wine, they buried them magnificently enough. In the Tenth Hymn, Ver. 665, &c. which contains the Passion of Ro­manus, a Christian Woman being at his Execution with a Child, delivers him to be [Page 315]ask'd whether 'tis not better to worship One God than Many? The Child an­swers, Yes, and says that his Mother taught him so: Whereupon the Pagan Judge causes him to be whipt till the Blood runs before his Mother who exhorts him to suffer, is angry with him because he calls for some Drink, and afterwards carries him to be Be­headed.

If those Circumstances, and many more, are true, it doth necessarily follow, that they spared then, in some measure, the Blood of the Christians, and put but few of them to death, to terrifie others, since they did not put to death such Persons as made a pub­lick Declaration. Yet if we believe those who wrote since the History of those Times, 'twas enough to shew that one was a Chri­stian, to suffer Martyrdom; and the Rivers were red with the innocent Blood that was shed, to confess the Name of Christ. Those who have no great love for Truth, and main­tain it with the same Spirit that stirs those who defend a Faction, have always done the same: They never believed that simple Truth was sufficient to maintain it self, but that it wanted to be adorned and upholden with Lyes. A fatal Conduct, and which hath done Truth so great a wrong, as will never be repaired. All that can be done by those who love it, is to endeavour to disin­tangle [Page 316]it from Fables as much as they can, and ingenuously to confess that an infinite number of Falshoods hath been mixed with some true Facts. This we are obliged to do, especially in the History of the Mar­tyrs; and Mr. Dodwell hath happily per­formed it in his Cyprianick Dissertations, wherein he shews that there hath not been so many Martyrs as the Martyrologies reckon.

5. Although the Heathenish Custom, of filling the Churches with Images, is not approved, because it hath been found by Experience that they do more harm than good; yet it must be confest, that that Custom was practised in Italy in the begin­ning of the Fourth Century, and perhaps before. We learn it from Prudentius, in the Ninth Hymn, wherein he says, Ver. 9. That as he was going to Rome, he went into a Church at Imola, where St. Cassianus a Martyr was buried, and that being upon his Knees before his Grave, he saw there the Representation of his Martyrdom, over-against him:

The same thing may be observed in the Eleventh Hymn, concerning Ver. 123. St. Hyppolitus, [Page 317]in whose Chappel Prudentius reports that the same thing may may be seen as in that of Cassianus.

It ought to be observed, that upon that Grave there was a Table, or an Altar, on which they celebrated the Ibid. ver. 170. Eucharist; so that, that Image precisely upon the Altar where they are wont to place Images now in the Church of Rome.

Thus those who had but a confused No­tion of Christian Piety, believed that it could not maintain it self without the help of Outward Objects, and I know not what Heathenish Pomp, which hath at last extin­guished the Spirit of the Gospel, and substi­tuted Paganism in its room. Whatever hath an Outward Appearance of Piety, and may be observed without having any Vertue in the Soul, was always easily entertained amongst ignorant Nations; who, on the contrary, did always neglect whatever re­quires some Vertue to be practised. How­ever, we must acknowledge, that Images were not yet permitted every where at that time; [Page 318]witness St. Epiphanius's Action, who tore a Vail in a Church of a Village in Palestine, named Anablatha, because there was a Picture upon it, saying, that it was against the Authority of the Scripture. He himself relates that Action, in a Letter to John Bi­shop of Jerusalem, which St. Jerom tran­slated into Latin, and speaks of it as of an Action which no body could blame, and which was grounded upon the Doctrine of the Apostles. However, it apears from Pru­dentius, that this was not the Opinion of the whole Christian Church; and one may see thereby, that the single Testimony of one Father is not sufficient to judge of the Opi­nions of all the Christians, as 'tis but too often practised.

III. Prudentius his Apotheosis is a Poem in Heroick Verses, wherein he assaults seve­ral Errors either of some Hereticks, or of the Jews. He attacks,

1. The Patripassians, or Disciples of Noêtus, who lived about the Year 240, who distinguished no Hypostases in the Deity, and believing that it was united to Christ, maintained that the Father had suf­fered as well as the Son. 'Tis a difficult thing to know whether the Opinion of that Heretick is faithfully related, or whether [Page 319]they did not ascribe to him the Conse­quences which they drew from it. How­ever, Prudentius endeavours to prove against him, that the Father never made himself Visible, and that consequently it cannot be said that he dwelt in Christ; but it must be confest that this is a very weak Argument, according to the Notions of our Modern Divines. For if the Essence of the Son be­came in some respect Visible by being United to Christ, that of the Father became Vi­sible at the same time, because 'tis but One only Essence in Number.

2. The next Hereticks against whom Prudentius writes, are the Ʋnionites, that is to say, the Sabellians, who began to appear about twenty Years after Noëtus. They used the same Arguments with that Here­tick, to prove the Unity of a Divine Hy­postasis; and they were answered as Noëtus was, (as may be seen in Haerēs. 57, & 62. St. Epihanius.) Prudentius upbraids Sabellius with saying nothing that's new; because the Pagans, especially the Philosopers, acknowledged the Unity of a Supreme God, as well as he, although they did sometimes mention many: [Page 320]

Afterwards he shews, that the Christians surpass those Pagan Ʋnionites, because they believe Three Hypostases in that One Deity; and that if there was but One Hypostasis, the Son would be Son of Himself; which is absurd. That whole Dispute is a very intri­cate one, because it runs upon a Subject equally incomprehensible to the Orthodox and Hereticks; and those who will carefully read the Reasonings of Prudentius and St. Epiphanius upon that Matter, will per­ceive that they prove not Three Modifica­tions of One Essence, but Three equally Glorious Essences.

This the Hereticks upbraided the Ortho­dox with, when they asked 'em, as St. Epi­phanius relates it, Have we One God, or have we Three? Prudentius answers that Que­stion, in his Ver. 347. Hamartigeny, thus:

[Page 321]That is to say, those are not Three, whose Nature is the same Kind, [...] in Greek, which is the same thing with [...], (as I have shewed In the Life of Eu­sebius. elsewhere.)

3. Afterwards Prudentius attacks the Jews somewhat weakly, by confusedly re­lating some Miracles of Christ, and some Ef­fects of the Gospel, either true or false, as the History of I know not what Magical Sacrifice of Julian, the Effects whereof a Christian hindred by his Presence. Yet he speaks well of that Emperor, which is a sign of his Equity:

4. The Fourth Error, which Prudentius confutes, is that of Paulus Samosatenus, Bi­shop of Antioch, who believed the Unity of God, in the same sence as Noëtus and Sa­bellius: but said, that Christ was but a meer Man. To shew the falsity of that Do­ctrine, Prudentius relates the History of the Wise Men, and the Miracles of Christ. He that set down the Titles to those Places of the Apotheosis, wherein our Poet begins to [Page 322]confute a new Error, calls the Followers of Paulus, Homuncionites.

5. Prudentius explains the Nature of the Soul, against I know not what Hereticks, who seem to have made it Equal to the Di­vine Nature: He shews, that the Soul hath a Beginning, though it be like God; wherein it differs from the Son, of whom the Essence had no Beginning, having been in his Father from all Eternity. Afterwards he shews how it is subject to several Weak­nesses, and may sin. He says that Souls Ver. 910. become corrupted, by being united with the Body, which all Men have from Adam; whence it is that all Men are born Sinners, and that we must beware of believing that Souls produce other Souls.

6. Our Poet writes against the Phan­tasmaticks, that is to say, those who pre­tended that Christ had not a True Body. He doth especially endeavour to to shew that, if this were true, God would have deceived us, and that Christ's Genea­logy would he but a Chimaera; in effect, the Manichaeans, who were of the number of the Phantasmaticks, rejected that Genealogy.

7. Prudentius, in the last place, describes the Resurrection, in some Venses, and so ends his Poem.

IV. The following Poem, entitled Ha­martigeny, or, The Birth of Sin, is against the Opinions of the Manicheans and Marcio­nites, who believed Two Collateral Gods, whereof the one was the Author of Good, and the other of Evil. Prudentius doth scarce any thing but set down the common Opinion, and repeat several ways, That there is but One All-Good God; and that he whom the Hereticks make Equal with Him, is an Angel fallen from his Innocency, who induced Men to Sin, and is really the cause of most Evils which happen in the World, which our Poet describes at large.

The Manicheans and Marcionites raised an Objection against the Orthodox, which Prudentius Ver. 640. alledges, without abating any thing of its strength; viz. That if the God who governs the World did not delight in Sin, he would hinder it; since he is not ig­norant of Mens Corruption, and can hinder it. They pretended, that to do Ill, or suf­fer it, was the same thing, when it can be remedied. Prudentius answer, First, That it doth plainly appear, that God delights not in Sin; since he applies a Remedy to it, and saves those who abstain from it. But, replied the Hereticks, Men cannot Sin, if God will not; since he masters Mens Hearts, and turns them as he pleases. Our [Page 324]Poet doth not resolve this Difficulty any other way, than by having recourse to Free-Will, without which, there can be neither Vice nor Vertue. He doth much enlarge upon that, and proves it, not only by the Example of our First Parents, but of Lot and his Wife, Noemi's Daughter-in-Law; and of two Brothers, one of whom is seen every day to embrace Vertue, and the other to give up himself to Vice: To which he adds Ver. 508. this general Maxim:

All Men are not of the same Nature, but all have not the same End, because they do not all pursue the same thing. —

It appears from what hath been said be­fore, the Prudentius believed that Men are born corrupted; but one may see by what he says here, that he believed not that that Corruption did irresistibly determine 'em to do Ill. To which he adds. That because Men may be Good or Bad, as they will, God hath appointed Rewards and Punish­ments. If the Manicheans had further ob­jected to him, That it seems 'twere better if there was no Freedom of Will, nor Hap­piness, bestowed as a Reward, and if Men [Page 325]necessarily applying themselves to Good, were necessarily happy, than to make Men so dismal a Present as Free-Will, which ex­poses most of them to an Eternal Misery: If, I say, the Manicheans had raised such an Objection against him, he would perhaps have made use of his Principle, which I have already mention'd, viz. That few Men fall into that Misery. And who knows but Prudentius came by that Notion because of that Objection, which might easily come into his Mind?

2. Prudentius, describing the Flying of Lot, uses a word which cannot be under­stood without the help of the Old French, which hath its Original immediately from the bad Latin: 'Tis in the 773 Verse: ‘Alter (Lot) se proripit, altera mussat.’ That is, Et l'autre muse; in better Latin, Nectit moros. Father Chamillard paraphrases it Murmure, in effect Mussare signified that in the ancient Latinity, but afterwards it changed its signification. But that's an Observation of no great moment: I had rather observe another thing which Pru­dentius says in the same History, viz. That Lot's Wife was not only changed into a Statue of Salt, but also, that that Statue was [Page 326]perfectly like her, and had the Head turned backwards; That it was still extant; and though the Salt did melt, and was often licked by the Cattle, yet it did not lessen. It seems that our Poet had this out of a Poem upon Sodom, ascribed to Tertullian, wherein 'tis said moreover, that 'twas known every Month, by a certain Mark, that 'twas a Woman's Statue. I think I am able The Au­thor hath done it since, in his Com­ment up­on Genesis. to shew, that Moses says not that Lot's Wife was metamorphosed into a Statue of Salt; but this is not a fit place to enlarge upon that Matter, or shew, that what is related concerning the Statue of Salt, are meer Fables.

3. At the end of this Poem Prudentius offers a Prayer to God, which deserves to be observed. He prays, That when he is dead, he may not see a Devil, who car­ries his Soul into the Black Dens, where he will be forced to pay whatever he owes, to the last Farthing. He doth not beg to be in the Place where the Blessed, espe­cially the Virgins dwell. He says he'll be content, provided he sees no Devil, and Hell devours not his Soul; that since is is necessary, because of the Corruption which his Soul had contracted in his Body, he consents to be swallowed up by the sod Fire of Avernus, provided however [Page 327]that it shall not be too hot. Let others (says he) be gloriously crowned in an Immense Light, and I but lightly burnt.

Prudentius adds not, that he hoped to get out of that Place in the Day of the Re­surrection; so that one cannot affirm, that he understands by it what was since called Purgatory, as F. Chamillard thinks. The Antients differed so much among them­selves concerning those Matters, that we cannot tell whether Prudentius had not a private Opinion of his own concerning this; and believed not, that a lesser degree of Heat, though it should last for ever, was a hind of Happiness. In effect, he ranks the Place wherein he wished to be, among the several Habitations in the House of God, which Christ speaks of, John xix.

V. The Psychomachy is an Allegorical Poem, wherein Prudentius describes a Fight of Vertues against Vices, and wherein there is nothing that's remarkable.

VI. The two Books against Symmachus were composed a little while after the De­feat of Alarick by Stilichon, in the Year 402. as it appears from the 695 Verse of the Se­cond Book, wherein Prudentius mentions that Defeat, as having lately happened. Symmachus, a Pagan and Praefect of the City of Rome, the most Eloquent Orator of his time, had about eighteen Years be­fore presented a Request to Valentinianus, Theodosius and Arcadius, to obtain from them the re-establishment of an Altar and Statue of Victory, which was in the Place where the Senate met, and which Gratianus took away. We have still the Discourse of Symmachus, and an Answer to it of St. Am­brose Bishop of Milan, which he wrote when he had disappointed the Request of Symma­chus, by another which he presented upon the spot. Prudentius did also exercise him­self in writing an Answer in Verses to the Discourse of that famous Heathen. He ex­cuses himself for daring to write against so learned a Man. Lib. 1. ver. 646. In effect, the Verses of our Poet are not comparable with Symma­chus's [Page 329]Prose, as to what concerns the Ex­pression; though the Reasons of the latter, being only the Reasons of a Declamator, are very much beneath those of Prudentius. Yet Prudentius says scarce any thing against the Pagan Religion, but what other Chri­stian Authors, who wrote upon the same Matter, said before him. He spends his First Book in that, and answers Symmachus's Reasons only in the Second.

1. One may learn from two Places of the First Book, that there was then but a small number of Heathens in Rome, since Ver. 579. Pru­dentius says to the Pagans, That to know how few People pay Honour to the Altars of Jupiter, one needs only observe of what Religion are those who live in the highest Stories of the Houses, those who walk through the whole City, those who are nourished with the Bread which the Empe­rors distributed to the People, those who lived at the foot of the Vatican, and those who go to the Church of Lateran, to be Confirm'd there.— It appears from thence, that the greatest part of the People were Christians. And a little lower, Ver. 609. Pru­dentius teaches us, that the greatest number of the Senators were Christians too; Be­cause they had thrown down the Images of the Gods, by a Decree of the Senate [Page 330]made by the Majority of Votes. He says, That the Senators gave freely their Con­sent to the Proposal of the Emperor for it; which was evident, because that Prince did equally honour Merit in the Pagans and Christians.

2. Simmachus had drawn an Argument for the Pagan Religion from its Antiquity, which he expressed very elegantly; Si longa aet as authoritatem religionibus faciat, ser­vanda est tot saeculis sides, & sequendi sunt nobis Parentes, qui feliciter sequuti sunt suos: If length of Time is of some weight in Re­ligion, we ought not to depart from the Belief of so many Centuries; we ought to imitate our Fathers, who did so well imitate theirs.— This is so well worded, that the ablest Missionary cannot preach better against the Innovators. Yet Pruden­tius answers chiefly two things against that Argument, which are so judicious, that the most learned Innovator cannot answer a Missionary better. The First is, That if the manner of Living of past Ages, is al­ways to be preferr'd before that of the time wherein one lives, the Romans of that time should have renounced all the Conveniences of Life, trodden under foot all Sciences, re­call'd the Inconveniences and Barbarity of the Age of Saturn, and sacrificed Humane [Page 331]Victims to him. The Second thing is, That the Religion of the Romans was very much altered since Saturnus, and even Romulus's time:

What was remarkable in the Religion of the Romans, is, that since Romulos, the num­ber of the Gods was infinitely encreased:

3. Symmachus said also, That as every Body hath a certain Soul; so Cities have some Tutelar Gods, which Fate gives 'em. Prudentius having laught at those pretended Genius's, Ver. 460. doth very much inveigh, as all the Ancient Christians did, against the Opi­nion of Fate. He says, that if it be true, there should be no Laws nor Punishments against Malefactors: [Page 332]

That Unmoveable Fate doth unavoidably force to Sin; That it disposes the Will to do Ill, so that Men cannot forbear be­ing willing to do what is forbidden.

4. The Heathen Orator vaunted much the Institution and Chastity of the Vestales: But Prudentius, who did not suffer himself to be surprized by fine words, when the Question was about Paganism, replied, Ver. 1065. That it must be observed, that the Vestales were chosen in their Childhood, before they came to despise the lawful Bond of Marriage of their own motion, and kindled with the love of Virginity and Religion. They Consecrate (says he) their Chastity before the Altars against their Wills, and those poor Wretches are deprived of a Pleasure which they take away from them, but they have not de­spised it: If they are Chaste as to the Body, they are not so as to the Mind: They enjoy no Rest in their Beds, where an Invisible Wound makes them sigh after the Nuptial Torches. — The same [Page 333]Argument cannot be made use of against the Christian Nuns of that time, who were permitted to Marry, if they were not con­tent with Celebacy. But some things have happen'd since among a part of Christians, by the means whereof we see now-a-days, upon the Theater of Christianity, its several Parties act the same Scene between them­selves, which was acted formerly by the Pagans and Christians.

VII. Lastly, There are Forty nine Qua­drants to be found in the Works of Pruden­tius upon several Histories of the Old and New Testament, which make up a little Book entitled Enchiridion, whereby the Style is still less Poetical than that of the other Works of our Poet.